The parties in the anonymous blogging case could have had ten thousand "meet and confers" in the amount of time (not to mention money) they have spent debating the finer points of the Local Rule.
In our latest installment, The Kluginator further elucidates the difference between a "motion" and a "request" for purposes of the governmental mandate to actually communicate with opposing counsel:
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the local rules regarding pre-filing conferences for not only the Request, but also for their Request for Oral Argument on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 27] and their Request for Oral Argument on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [D.E. 29] (collectively, the “Requests for Oral Argument”). This is incorrect. Plaintiffs filed the Requests for Oral Argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(1), and they are not subject to the provisions of Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). Moreover, the Request is merely a supplement to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Requests for Oral Arguments and the Request are proper, and this Court should reject Defendant’s argument to the contrary.Ok, stop: what exactly is a "supplement" to a motion for remand?
Is that what happens when you forget to ask for fees in the actual remand motion, and then you have to file another document later asking for fees should the remand be granted?
Given the precarious nature of the "supplement" in the first place, how would it have hurt to get an
Now let's talk "requests" for oral argument.
Again, what if opposing counsel also wanted a hearing? Wouldn't your request be stronger if the parties were united in their view that Judge Cooke should hold a hearing?
How would it have hurt to conferred?