*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:

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.