Laughlin v. Stuart

Background

The order addresses four motions filed by Plaintiff Michael Hari: a motion to compel answers to discovery requests; a verified motion for a rule requiring defendants to show cause; a verified motion seeking an order requiring production of documents for private judicial review; and a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) for alleged destruction or loss of evidence. Hari also requested permission to withdraw an earlier motion to compel answers to interrogatories and to treat requests for admission as admitted.

Hari and the other plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers. The court had previously warned Hari that, before filing motions requiring a discussion with opposing counsel, he had to conduct a genuine meet-and-confer and provide correspondence or a detailed account showing that the parties had meaningfully discussed the specific dispute. The court had also previously denied motions by Hari concerning confidential documents because he had not meaningfully conferred with the defendants.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires a discovery motion to include a certification that the movant made a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The District of Minnesota’s local rule similarly requires a good-faith meet-and-confer, when possible, before filing most motions. The court explained that this requires a genuine back-and-forth discussion about each disputed discovery request, not merely a demand for compliance followed by a motion.

After reviewing the parties’ communications, the court found that Hari had not met and conferred in good faith before filing the four motions. The court concluded that his letters listed numerous issues without clearly identifying the relief he would seek, gave defendants inadequate time to respond, or were followed by motions before defendants replied. The court also found that Hari’s brief meet-and-confer statements did not satisfy the earlier order requiring correspondence or a sufficiently detailed summary showing that a proper discussion occurred.

Rulings

The court granted Hari’s request to withdraw the earlier motion, and that motion was withdrawn. It denied Hari’s motion to compel discovery, verified motion for a rule to show cause, verified motion seeking production for private judicial review, and motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The court stated that its prior consistent orders remained in effect.

The court further cautioned that failure to follow this or earlier orders could result in appropriate remedies, including costs, fines, attorney fees, limits on evidence, summary denial of motions, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung.