Hines v. First Citizens Bank
Hines v. First Citizens Bank
2024 WL 1009519 (N.D. Ga. 2024)
January 2, 2024
Larkins III, John K., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court denied a pro se plaintiff's motion to compel the defendant to provide more documents in a wrongful foreclosure case due to the premature nature of the motion and the lack of good faith effort to resolve the issue before filing. The court also reminded the plaintiff to follow proper procedures for resolving discovery disputes.
Jason M. HINES, Plaintiff,
v.
FIRST CITIZENS BANK, et al., Defendants
v.
FIRST CITIZENS BANK, et al., Defendants
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:23-cv-2822-VMC-JKL
United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Signed January 02, 2024
Counsel
Jason M. Hines, Fairburn, GA, Pro Se.Ryan Christopher Marks, Office of Attorney General Chris Carr, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants The Attorney General Chris Carr, The Honorable Thomas A. Cox, Jr.
Robert Joel Solomon, Solomon Baggett, LLC, Duluth, GA, for Defendants Solomon Baggett, LLC, Attorney Robert J. Solomon.
Joseph P. Farrell, O'Kelley & Sorohan, Attorneys at Law, LLC, Duluth, GA, for Defendants Won Suk Seo, Susan Property Management LLC, Attorney Joseph P. Farrell.
Keith Steven Anderson, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants First Citizens Bank, Attorney Joyeuse Umutomi.
Richard Randolph Edwards, III, Cochran & Edwards, LLC, Smyrna, GA, for Defendant Attorney Scott Cochran.
John Gerard Brookhuis, O'Kelley & Sorohan, Attorneys at Law, LLC, Tucker, GA, Joseph P. Farrell, O'Kelley & Sorohan, Attorneys at Law, LLC, Duluth, GA, for Defendant Attorney John G. Brookhuis.
Larkins III, John K., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 This is a wrongful foreclosure case in which Plaintiff Jason M. Hines is proceeding pro se. The case is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to requests for documents that he directed to Defendant Joseph P. Farrell via a letter dated November 28, 2023. [Doc. 96.] Farrell construed Plaintiff's letter as a request for production of documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 and on December 28, 2023, responded to the requests and lodged various objections. [Id. at 7-9.[1]] The following day, on December 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel.
The motion is due to be denied for two reasons, both procedural. First, the Court stayed discovery in this case on November 17, 2023 so that it could resolve pending motions to dismiss. [See Docs. 75, 92.] Thus, both Plaintiff's discovery requests and his motion to compel are improper and premature. Discovery in this case will not commence until after the pending motions to dismiss have been disposed of.
Second, even if the motion to compel were not premature, it must be denied because there is no indication that the parties met and conferred about Farrell's purported discovery deficiencies. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to engage in a good faith effort to resolve discovery issues prior to filing a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). There is no indication that Plaintiff, who filed his motion to compel one day after receiving Farrell's responses, even attempted to confer with Farrell. Also, any motion to compel must include a certification from the moving party that the parties conferred in good faith. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); LR 37.1(A)(1), NDGa. Plaintiff's motion contains no such certification.[2]
In sum, Plaintiff's service of discovery violated this Court's order staying discovery and his motion itself violated the Court's order and the applicable rules. Accordingly, the motion to compel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of January, 2024.
Footnotes
Farrell's objections, which Plaintiff attached to his motion, are barely legible because Plaintiff has printed them four pages to a sheet. In the future, Plaintiff must ensure that documents presented to the Court for filing are legible. Otherwise, the Court will disregard documents that it cannot read.
Moreover, this Court's practice is to require the parties to confer either in person or via telephone and to alert the Court of a discovery dispute before filing a motion to compel. These instructions will be included in the Court's scheduling order, which has not yet been entered due to the stay of discovery period.