NICOLE HAUGDAHL, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, Defendant CASE NO. 4:19cv87-MW/MJF United States District Court, N.D. Florida Filed October 17, 2019 Counsel Elena Komsky, Marie A. Mattox, Tallahassee, FL, Thomas L. Dickens, III, Morgan & Morgan PA, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff. Renee Sara Gordon, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant. Walker, Mark E., United States District Judge ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY AND FOR AWARD OF FEES AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY *1 This Court has considered, without hearing, Plaintiff's motion for order compelling discovery and for award of fees, ECF No. 49, Defendant's amended response to the motion, ECF No. 56, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply, ECF No. 57, as well as Defendant's notice regarding Plaintiff's motion for leave, ECF No. 58. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for order compelling discovery, ECF No. 49, is DENIED as moot in part and TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT in part. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply, ECF No. 57, is GRANTED. I This Court will first address the parties' dispute regarding requests for production 11 and 52. This is Plaintiff's second motion to compel in less than one month. Plaintiff's first motion to compel was denied without prejudice because the parties resolved the majority of their disputes after Plaintiff filed her motion and before this Court ruled on the motion. ECF No. 44. This Court ordered the parties to confer on any outstanding disputes and permitted Plaintiff to file another motion to compel if the parties were unable to resolve their disputes. ECF No. 44. Plaintiff now brings a second motion to compel. Once again, Plaintiff has jumped the gun with respect to two of the three discovery disputes raised in the motion. See ECF No. 49 at 6 n.4 (“[Defendant's counsel] has represented that complete applications will be provided by Monday, October 14, 2019); ECF No. 49 at 5 (Defendant's counsel “has stated in several emails that she has ‘followed up’ with her client, but has still not received the documents.”); ECF No. 57 at 2 (“Since Plaintiff's motion was filed, Defendant served on Plaintiff the documents responsive to requests 11 and 52.”). Uncoincidentally, Plaintiff's counsel failed to include the required certification confirming that she complied with the attorney-conference requirement of Local Rule 7.1(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). See N.D. Fla. R. 7.1(B)–(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1). That is perhaps because Plaintiff's counsel does not appear to have participated in a meaningful conference. Compare ECF No. 49-6 (October 11, 2019 email from Plaintiff's counsel regarding discovery disputes and response from Defendant's counsel advising that additional documents would be produced on October 14, 2019) with N.D. Fla. R. 7.1(B) (“An email or other writing sent at or near the time of filing the motion is not a meaningful conference.”). In an effort to avoid additional premature motions to compel, Plaintiff is reminded that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this District's Local Rules provide that motions to compel discovery responses must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with opposing counsel prior to seeking this Court's help in resolving discovery disputes. In this context, confer means “to have a conference; compare and exchange ideas; meet for discussion; converse.” See Hepstall v. Humana Health Plan, Inc., No. 18-0163, 2018 WL 6588552, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 6, 2018) (quoting Webster's New World Dictionary (College Edition, 1968)). A conference is “[a] meeting of several persons for deliberation, for the interchange of opinion, or for the removal of differences or disputes.” Id. (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (4th ed. 1968)). Therefore, simply corresponding with opposing counsel is not considered a good-faith attempt to confer or have a conference to resolve discovery disputes. *2 Because the parties have resolved their dispute regarding requests for production 11 and 52, Plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 49, is DENIED as moot to the extent it requests an order compelling Plaintiff to produce documents responsive to these requests. II This Court next addresses the parties' dispute regarding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Lakisha Hood. Plaintiff has sought leave to file a reply attaching the transcript of Ms. Hood's deposition testimony. ECF No. 57. Defendant does not object. ECF No. 58. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply, ECF No. 57, is GRANTED. This Court takes Plaintiff's motion to compel, ECF No. 49, under advisement with respect to the parties' dispute regarding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Ms. Hood. Plaintiff shall file the transcript of Ms. Hood's deposition testimony and a citation to the relevant portion of the deposition transcript on or before October 25, 2019. III Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C), when a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, this Court “may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(C). As Plaintiff's motion to compel has been, at this point, denied in part, this Court may apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion. As outlined above, Plaintiff filed her motion to compel before attempting in good faith to obtain the discovery without court action. Accordingly, this Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees and expenses for opposing Plaintiff's motion to compel. This Court will determine the amount at the conclusion of the case to save time and resources. IV For these reasons, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's motion to compel, ECF No. 49, is DENIED as moot to the extent it requests Defendant be compelled to produce documents responsive to requests for production 11 and 52. 2. This Court takes Plaintiff's motion to compel, ECF No. 49, under advisement with respect to the parties' dispute regarding Ms. Hood's deposition testimony. 3. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply, ECF No. 57, is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the transcript of Ms. Hood's deposition testimony and a citation to the relevant portion of the deposition transcript on or before October 25, 2019. 4. Defendant is entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses for opposing Plaintiff's motion to compel. This Court will determine the amount at the conclusion of the case to save time. SO ORDERED on October 17, 2019.