Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ull v. Fire Safety

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


September 22, 2009

RICHARD ULL PLAINTIFF,
v.
FIRE SAFETY, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Clifford J. Proud United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to Compel. (Doc. 38). Defendant filed its response at Doc. 40, and plaintiff filed a reply at Doc. 45.

The motion concerns two areas of discovery. First, plaintiff seeks to compel defendant to produce witnesses Donna Karpan, Barry Dittman, Gordon Hill, Scott Miller and Joan Cochran for deposition. All of these persons except for Joan Cochran are employees of defendant. Defendant has notified plaintiff that he must subpoena Cochran. See, Doc. 40, p. 2. Defendant had resisted producing its employees for deposition until the issue of consolidation of plaintiff's cases was resolved. Now that the cases have been consolidated, the problem is resolved.

Evidently, plaintiff has not yet been deposed. The Court has, this date, entered an amended scheduling order which provides a discovery deadline of January 6, 2010. The Court expects the parties to agree upon an appropriate schedule for the depositions of the parties.

Secondly, plaintiff seeks to compel defendant to respond to certain of his written discovery requests. Plaintiff's certificate of attempt to resolve, attached to Doc. 38, states that plaintiff's counsel attempted to reach defendant's attorneys "through their secretaries on numerous occasions; correspondence dates June 29, 2009, and July 6, 2009." The two letters are attached to Doc. 38 as Ex. A and B. They do not concern the written discovery requests.

Fed. R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1) requires that, before a motion to compel discovery responses is filed, the movant must, in good faith, confer or attempt to confer with opposing counsel in an effort to obtain discovery responses without court action. This Court take this requirement seriously. It is evident from defendant's response to the motion that the parties could resolve at least some of the objections on their own.

For good cause shown, plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 38) is DENIED at this time. However, counsel for both parties are directed to confer in a good faith effort to resolve defendant's objections to the written discovery requests. Thereafter, if unresolved issues remain, plaintiff may file another motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090922

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.