Turner v. Home Depot, Inc.
Turner v. Home Depot, Inc.
2019 WL 13253385 (E.D. Tex. 2019)
May 22, 2019
Mitchell, Katie N., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court reviewed the electronic correspondence attached to the Motion to Quash to determine the parties' respective responsibilities in the failure to engage in a meaningful meet and confer. The Court found that the parties did not meet and confer meaningfully and thus struck the Motion to Quash, ordering the parties to meet and confer in person in good faith before filing any subsequent discovery motions.
Additional Decisions
JOSEPH TURNER; and JOYCE TURNER, Plaintiffs,
v.
THE HOME DEPOT, INC.; and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendants
v.
THE HOME DEPOT, INC.; and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendants
CASE NO. 6:18-CV-509-JDK-KNM
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division
Filed May 22, 2019
Mitchell, Katie N., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 Before the Court is Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.'s Motion to Quash the Notice of the Deposition of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Motion for Entry of a Protective Order (“Motion to Quash”). Dkt. No. 29.
After counsel in the above-entitled case failed to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs' earlier filed motion to compel, the Court emphasized that motion practice in discovery should be the last resort after the parties have had meaningful discussions about resolving the dispute. See Hearing Minutes of May 14, 2019 at 2:55:31 P.M. This principle is reflected in the Court's “Meet and Confer” Requirement. See Local Rule CV-7(h).
Local Rule CV-7(h), entitled “Meet and Confer” Requirement, states:
The “meet and confer” motions practice requirement imposed by this rule has two components, a substantive and a procedural component..... In any discovery-related motion, the substantive component requires, at a minimum, a personal conference, by telephone or in person, between the lead attorney and any local counsel for the movant and the lead attorney and any local counsel for the non-movant.
In the personal conference, the participants must give each other the opportunity to express his or her views concerning the disputes. The participants must also compare views and have a discussion in an attempt to resolve their differing views before coming to court. Such discussion requires a sincere effort in which the participants present the merits of their respective positions and meaningfully assess the relative strengths of each position.....
Except as otherwise provided by this rule, a request for court intervention is not appropriate until the participants have met and conferred, in good faith, and concluded, in good faith, that the discussions have conclusively ended in an impasse, leaving an open issue for the court to resolve. Good faith requires honesty in one's purpose to discuss meaningfully the dispute, freedom from intention to defraud or abuse the discovery process and faithfulness to one's obligation to secure information without court intervention.....
Local Rule CV-7(h) (emphasis added).
The meet and confer requirement is not a perfunctory obligation. See Morrison v. Walker, No. 1:13-CV-327, 2014 WL 11512240, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2014). The requirement “ensures that the court does not waste its resources deciding motions where, if the parties had thoroughly discussed the matter, a resolution could have been reached.” Id. (emphasis added).
According to the instant motion, Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot” or “Defendant”) attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs' counsel before filing its Motion to Quash. Doc. No. 29 at 1. Home Depot alleges Plaintiffs' counsel “refused to set any time to confer on this matter ....” Id. at 2.
A review of the electronic correspondence attached to the Motion to Quash shows that both parties bear some responsibility for the failure to engage in a meaningful meet and confer. Defendant sent Plaintiffs' counsel an email with a draft of its Motion to Quash the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition set for Monday, May 20, 2019, on Friday, May 17, 2019. In that email, Defendant stated it “has many objections to [Plaintiffs'] notice and will not be able to present a witness for deposition on Monday, May 20th.” Doc. No. 29-3 at 1. Plaintiffs' counsel asked for clarification of Defendant's objections, and declined to reset the deposition until Defendant provided clarification and an alternative date for the deposition. Dkt. No. 29-6. In response, Defendant reiterated that “the deposition will not go forward on Monday[,]” and suggested the parties meet and confer at 1:30 P.M. on May 20, 2019. Dkt. No. 29-8 at 3. Plaintiffs' counsel declined the invitation to meet and confer because: “Monday at 1:30 [sic] is the time of the deposition. So [Plaintiffs' counsel] will be unavailable then.” Id. at 2. Put simply, Defendant's counsel could have, and should have, provided its objections to Plaintiffs' counsel sooner than the Friday before the deposition set for the following Monday. Similarly, when it became apparent that the deposition would not be going forward on May 20, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel should have worked with Defendant's counsel to find an appropriate time to meet and confer.
*2 Regardless, it is clear that the parties did not meaningfully meet and confer regarding the Motion to Quash. See Local Rule CV-7(h). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.'s Motion to Quash (Doc. No. 29) is hereby STRIKEN for failure to comply with Local Rule CV-7(h). It is further
ORDERED that each party's lead counsel shall meet and confer IN PERSON, in good faith, and in compliance with Local Rule CV-7(h), prior to filing any subsequent discovery motions. Defendant may refile its Motion to Quash after complying with this Order.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of May, 2019.