Induction Therapies, LLC v. Ingenes, LLC
Induction Therapies, LLC v. Ingenes, LLC
2023 WL 3848370 (D. Md. 2023)
March 21, 2023
Sullivan, Timothy J., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court denied the motion to compel because it was filed in violation of the Local Rules and because it was untimely. The Local Rules are aimed at encouraging parties to resolve their disputes without judicial intervention.
INDUCTION THERAPIES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
INGENES, LLC, et al., Defendants
v.
INGENES, LLC, et al., Defendants
Case No. DKC-21-0604
United States District Court, D. Maryland
Signed
March 20, 2023
Filed March 21, 2023
Counsel
David D. Hudgins, Hudgins Law Firm, P.C., Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiff.Andrew Charles Aitken, IP Law Leaders PLLC, Bethesda, MD, for Defendants.
Sullivan, Timothy J., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 This case was referred to me for discovery, specifically ECF No. 55.[1] ECF No. 56.
During discovery, Plaintiff Induction Therapies, LLC (“Induction”) filed a motion to compel Defendants to produce proper responses to its interrogatories and document production requests. ECF No. 44. On August 9, 2022, the Court denied this motion without prejudice because the motion did not comply with Local Rules 104.7 and 104.8. ECF No. 47. The Court ordered that the “parties must comply with the Court's Local Rules before the Court will consider their discovery dispute.” Id.
Discovery closed on December 14, 2022. See ECF No. 52. On January 3, 2023, Induction served a motion to compel on Defendants. ECF No. 55-2. The motion is directed at the same deficient discovery responses raised in the motion to compel that Induction filed five months earlier. According to the Certification filed at ECF No. 55, counsel for the parties met about their discovery dispute “by phone on January 3, 2023” (the same day that the motion was served on Defendants).
The Court previously summarized the requirements of Local Rules 104.7 and 104.8, which govern the presentation of discovery disputes to the Court:
Local Rule 104.8 sets the procedure regarding motions to compel. If a party is dissatisfied with a response to an interrogatory or document production request, and the party has been unable to resolve the dispute informally, the party may serve a motion to compel on the responding party within 30 days of the deficient discovery response. Loc. R. 104.8(a). The motion is not to be filed with the Court. Id. Thereafter, the responding party has 14 days to serve its response to the motion, and then another 14 days for the moving party to serve its reply. Once the motion, response, and reply have been served, the parties are required to meet and confer to make sincere attempts to resolve the dispute. Loc. R. 104.7; 104.8(b). If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute during their conference, the moving party may then file the motion, response, reply, and Local Rule 104.7 Certificate on CM/ECF.
ECF No. 47 at 1.
The Court will again deny Induction's motion to compel (ECF No. 55-1) because it was filed in violation of the Local Rules. Specifically, there is no certification that the parties met and conferred about the discovery dispute as “required by L.R. 104.7 after serving upon one another all of the documents relating to the motion to compel.” Loc. R. 104.8(b). The parties’ conference held on January 3, 2023, necessarily took place before the briefing related the motion to compel was complete. See ECF Nos. 55-14 at 11 (certifying that Defendants’ response was served on January 25, 2023) & 55-15 at 9 (certifying that Induction's reply was served on February 8, 2023). While it is commendable that the parties attempted to resolve their discovery dispute at that time, see Loc. R. 104.8(b) (encouraging counsel “to confer with one another before or immediately after a motion to compel is served”), the rules require more. By denying the motion on this basis, the Court is not enforcing some unwritten law. The requirements of Local Rules 104.7 and 104.8 are unambiguous: the parties must hold a conference to attempt to resolve their discovery dispute after the matter is fully briefed. The Court explained as much in its Order at ECF No. 47. This requirement was not satisfied in relation to the motion to compel.
*2 Alternatively, the Court will deny the motion to compel (ECF No. 55-1) because it is untimely. Induction was aware of Defendants’ alleged discovery deficiencies in August 2022, when it filed its previous motion to compel. ECF No. 44. Yet Induction waited until after the close of discovery to serve its new motion to compel on Defendants. Motions to compel are generally required to be served within 30 days of the moving party's receipt of deficient discovery responses. See Loc. R. 104.8(a). Given that Induction knew about Defendants’ deficient discovery responses long before the discovery deadline, the Court finds that the motion to compel (ECF No. 55-1) must be denied as untimely. See generally United States ex rel. Gohil v. Sanofi U.S. Servs. Inc., No. 02-2964, 2020 WL 1888966, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2020) (collecting cases where courts have denied motions to compel filed close to the discovery deadline as untimely).
Discovery disputes consume limited judicial resources. The Court's Local Rules are aimed at encouraging parties to resolve their disputes without judicial intervention. It is the practice of the undersigned to strictly enforce the requirements of Local Rules 104.7 and 104.8 unless gross injustice would result. Considering Induction's delay in presenting its motion to the Court and its noncompliance with the Local Rules (even after the Court explained the rules in a previous order), the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 55-1) is DENIED.
Footnotes
This case was previously assigned to Judge Hazel. Upon Judge Hazel's resignation, the case was reassigned to me, and then to Judge Chasanow.