Ivy v. Bolin
- Dulce Foster
- 0:24-cv-03425
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Ivy v. Bolin, Magistrate Judge Foster denied without prejudice Ivy’s motion to compel discovery because he did not meet and confer in good faith.
Rashad Ramon Ivy and the defendants in his discovery dispute, including the Department of Corrections employees and abuse review committees named in the opinion.
What happened
In Rashad Ramon Ivy v. William Bolin, et al., Rashad Ramon Ivy, who is representing himself and is incarcerated, asked the court to require defendants to provide discovery responses. He is suing Department of Corrections employees and abuse review committees over the denial of contact and video visits with his children.
Ivy argued that defendants’ discovery responses were deficient and that defense counsel had not properly met with him to discuss the disputes. The court found that defense counsel made a good-faith effort to arrange a phone call, but Ivy refused to discuss his concerns during that call because the parties had not spoken on the date he originally requested.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Ivy’s motion without prejudice because he had not made the good-faith effort required by the court’s local rule. The court said Ivy may renew the motion only after discussing his concerns with defendants, considering their positions, and trying to negotiate a resolution.
The detailed version
- Ivy v. Bolin · No. 0:24-cv-03425
- Dulce J. Foster
- June 10, 2025
Background
Rashad Ramon Ivy, a self-represented litigant incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility-Stillwater, sued several Department of Corrections employees and the Abuse Review Committees at two Minnesota correctional facilities. The opinion states that he alleges they denied him contact and video visits with his children for more than eight years.
On March 31, 2025, Ivy served discovery requests, including requests for documents, interrogatory responses, and admissions. Defendants responded on May 5, 2025. Ivy believed the responses had several deficiencies and sought an order compelling further responses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
Meet-and-Confer Requirement
Local Rule 7.1(a) requires a party filing most motions, when possible, to meet and confer with the opposing party in a good-faith effort to resolve the issues before asking the court to rule. The pretrial scheduling order and the judge’s practice pointers likewise required a focused and sincere effort to resolve or narrow disputes through an in-person meeting, videoconference, or telephone call.
Ivy left defense counsel a voicemail on May 9, 2025, and an email received on May 10 asked to arrange a video conference on May 13. Defense counsel did not recognize the sender name or email address and the email did not refer to the earlier communication. On May 12, defense counsel attempted to arrange a call for May 13. Department of Corrections staff could not accommodate that last-minute request, but they arranged a call for May 14.
During the May 14 call, defense counsel asked Ivy to explain his objections so counsel could consult with the defendants and respond. According to the opinion, Ivy refused to discuss his concerns because defendants had not met with him on May 13. The court found that adjusting the parties’ schedules was not a refusal to meet and confer and that defense counsel had made a good-faith effort to accommodate Ivy.
Ruling
The court concluded that Ivy’s conduct did not satisfy Rule 7.1(a)’s requirement for a sincere, good-faith exchange. It found that Ivy could not unilaterally demand a meeting on a particular date with minimal notice and then refuse to discuss the discovery disputes when the parties were available to talk. The court also criticized his characterization of defense counsel’s conduct.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Ivy’s First Motion to Compel Discovery without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 7.1(a). The order permits Ivy to renew the motion only after making a good-faith effort to resolve the discovery disputes, including discussing his concerns, considering defendants’ positions with an open mind, and negotiating toward common ground. The court stated that it would continue to summarily deny motions that do not follow the letter and spirit of Rule 7.1(a).
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.