*1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Douglas Ramsey's Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Dkt. 19; Defendant Sheet Pile's Response, Dkt. 21; and Ramsey's Reply, Dkt. 22.

Local Rules for the Western District of Texas Rule CV-7(g) states:

W.D. Tex. Loc. R. CV-7(g).

Ramsey propounded discovery to Sheet Pile on August 18, 2021. In his motion, Ramsey complains that on September 17, 2021, Sheet Pile submitted discovery responses and objections, but failed to produce any responsive documents. Ramsey states, “On Monday, September 20, 2021, the undersigned sent counsel for Defendant a discovery conference letter. [ ] As of the date of this filing [September 24, 2021], no response has been received to the conference letter.” Dkt. 19, at 2. Ramsey moves to compel production of those documents.

Sheet Pile responds that Ramsey failed to properly confer prior to filing his motion to compel. Sheet Pile submitted its allegedly deficient discovery responses on September 17, 2021, which was a Friday. Ramsey reached out to Sheet Pile's counsel on September 17, 2021, and received an email stating counsel was unavailable until Monday, September 20, 2021. Dkt. 19-3. On Sunday, September 19, 2021, counsel for Sheet Pile emailed Ramsey's counsel and stated he would get responsive documents to him the next week. Dkt. 19-4. On Monday, September 20, 2021, Ramsey's counsel sent a discovery letter outlining various perceived deficiencies in Sheet Pile's discovery responses and giving opposing counsel until September 24, 2021, to respond. Dkt. 19-5. On Friday, September 24, 2021, Ramsey filed the motion to compel now before the Court. Ramsey states, “Plaintiff's attempts at conferencing with the Defendant regarding the shortcoming went completely ignored.” Dkt. 19, at 11. On September 24, 2021, Sheet Pile produced documents to Ramsey. Dkt. 22, at 4. In his Reply, Ramsey asserts that Sheet Pile failed to respond to its discovery letter until September 29, 2021. Dkt. 22.

One week transpired in between Sheet Pile's submission of its discovery responses and the filing of Ramsey's motion to compel. Sheet Pile asserts that Ramsey's conference letter gave Sheet Pile until September 24, 2021, to respond, and that Ramsey filed the instant motion before that deadline. Dkt. 19-5. Additionally, Sheet Pile asserts that it produced thousands of pages of documents on September 24, 2021, as its counsel had agreed to do in its email. Dkt. 21, at 2.

*2 In his Reply, Ramsey now complains that the documents produced by Sheet Pile are unresponsive and produced in a disorganized fashion, and that after the production, he sent another letter to Sheet Pile complaining about the production. Id., at 3. He requests the undersigned to order Sheet Pile to amend its responses and cite the specific documents that it perceives are responsive to each request. He further requests the Court to overrule Sheet Pile's objections to Ramsey's discovery requests. The Court finds that any dispute raised in Ramsey's Reply regarding the unresponsiveness of the documents produced is a separate issue, requiring a separate motion, and a separate conference.

The Court finds that Ramsey failed to adequately attempt to confer with Sheet Pile's counsel before filing its motion to compel production of documents. Sheet Pile's counsel had stated it would produce the documents within the week, which meant by September 24, 2021, before the motion was filed. Sheet Pile's counsel had every reason to believe the issue had been resolved, or was at least in the process of being resolved. Ramsey did not attempt to confer after sending the discovery conference letter on September 20, 2021, and before filing the motion to compel on September 24, 2021. Merely sending a letter pointing out various discovery deficiencies and threatening to file a motion to compel does not meet the conference requirement. Seemingly much of the issue had already been resolved on the date the instant motion was filed. Had Ramsey properly complied with the Court's conference requirement, that would have been made clear, and this Court's resources could have been dedicated to other matters that actually require court intervention. The parties can expect future failures to comply with the Court's conference requirement to be met with a show-cause order requiring the offending party to appear and explain why it should not be subjected to sanctions.

Ramsey did not comply with the “good faith” conference requirement of Local Rules for the Western District of Texas Rule CV-7(g). His Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Dkt. 19, therefore, is properly DENIED.