Buntain v. Hansbro
Buntain v. Hansbro
2023 WL 11840705 (C.D. Ill. 2023)
December 19, 2023
Long, Eric I., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Defendants filed a motion to compel the Plaintiff's responses to their discovery demands, but the Court denied the motion because the Defendants failed to meet and confer with the Plaintiff in good faith before filing. The Court directed the parties to try to resolve the dispute before seeking court action, and noted that the Defendants may be required to pay the Plaintiff's expenses if the motion is denied.
Additional Decisions
DANA DEWEESE BUNTAIN, Plaintiff,
v.
SHELITH HANSBRO, et al Defendant
v.
SHELITH HANSBRO, et al Defendant
Case No. 21-1078
United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
Filed: December 19, 2023
Long, Eric I., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 This case is before the Court on the Motion to Compel (#73) filed by Defendants James Brown, Shelith Hansbro, Angela Locke, and Jane Moskus. Plaintiff Dana DeWeese Buntain (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response (#77) in opposition. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motion to Compel (#73) is DENIED.
Defendants served Plaintiff with their discovery demands on July 29, 2023. On August 28, Defendants received Plaintiff's responses. On September 26, 2023, the parties participated in a telephone conference, where they discussed issues Defendants had with Plaintiff's responses. On October 6, Plaintiff's counsel agreed to supplement Plaintiff's responses. Defendants received Plaintiff's supplemental responses on October 13. On October 26, Defendants filed their Motion to Compel.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's responses and supplemental responses fail to provide the information and details that were requested by the interrogatories. Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to provide complete, explicit, and responsive answers to Defendants' discovery demands.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that the
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) provides:
On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
“The requirement to meet-and-confer must be taken seriously, as ‘before the court can rule on a motion, the parties must demonstrate they acted in good faith to resolve the issue among themselves.’ ” Design Basics, Inc. v. Granite Ridge Builders, Inc., 2007 WL 1830809, *1 (N.D. Ind. June 21, 2007) (quoting Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2006)). A good faith effort to resolve a discovery dispute “requires that counsel converse, confer, compare views, consult and deliberate.” Id. (quoting Williams v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., 192 F.R.D. 698, 700 (D. Kan. 2000)).
The district court exercises significant discretion in ruling on a motion to compel. Gile v. United Airlines, 95 F.3d 492, 495-496 (7th Cir. 1996). It may grant or deny the motion in whole or in part. Id. “The party opposing discovery has the burden of proving that the requested discovery should be disallowed.” Peppers v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 2018 WL 8244003 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2018) (quoting Openheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).
*2 The Court finds that Defendants failed to meet and confer pursuant to Rule 37(a). Defendants fail to state or even indicate that before they filed their Motion, they met and conferred with Plaintiff after receiving Plaintiff's supplemental responses. The Rule requires that the movant has conferred in good faith with the party failing to make the disclosure. There is no evidence that the parties conversed, conferred, compared views, consulted, or deliberated about the dispute. See Design Basics, 2007 WL 18308009, *1. Only after making this good faith effort can the movant seek court action under Rule 37.
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Compel (#73) is DENIED. Because the Court denies the motion on this basis, the Court does not need to address whether Plaintiff properly responded to Defendants' discovery requests. Those issues should be raised during an actual meeting in which the parties confer about outstanding discovery.
Under Rule 37(a), if a motion to compel is denied, the court “must after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B)). The rule goes on to provide, however, that “the court must not order this payment if the motion was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id.
As the Court has not considered the merits of Defendants' Motion, the Court also will not consider the question of fees unless, or until, it considers the merits of the Motion.
In sum, Defendants' Motion to Compel (#73) is DENIED. The Court directs the parties to meet in good faith to try to resolve the dispute in accordance with Rule 37(a)(1) before seeking court action. If the parties are unable to resolve their differences following an additional meet and confer on the supplemental responses, Defendants may renew their Motion.
ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2023.