Moore v. Shahine

Background

Serina Moore, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a document titled “Motion to Compel,” docket entry 53. A motion to compel is a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for an order requiring another party to provide discovery. The defendant opposed the motion through an affirmation submitted by counsel, with exhibits.

Procedural deficiencies

The court explained that Local Civil Rule 37.2 required Moore to request an informal conference with the court about the discovery dispute before filing a Rule 37 motion. Moore had not made that request.

The court also found that Moore’s filing did not comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1. It lacked a notice of motion identifying the applicable rules or statutes, a memorandum of law explaining the supporting authorities, and an affidavit with relevant exhibits. In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) required a certification that Moore had made a good-faith effort to confer with the person or party allegedly failing to provide discovery. Moore did not include that certification.

The court stated that these failures made Moore’s motion procedurally defective. It also noted that the defendant’s opposition was procedurally defective because the defendant put legal citations and arguments in counsel’s affirmation, even though an affirmation should contain factual information, and did not submit the memorandum of law required by Local Civil Rule 7.1(b).

Ruling

The court concluded that granting the relief Moore requested was not warranted because of the procedural deficiencies in her motion. It denied Moore’s “Motion to Compel,” docket entry 53. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox signed the order on December 4, 2019.