Hey, I don't write this stuff.
But I'm sure glad to be able to share it, so let's dig into a nice Friday lovenote from Magistrate Judge Brown on that elusive "meet and confer" rule we always seem to be talking about:
First, the Court will address compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). It was not properly complied with in this situation. Indicative of how this case is being litigated is the statement by plaintiff that there is no “authority for the proposition Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requires counsel to discuss every detail of an anticipated request to the Court with the opposing party.” (Reply p. 5). What part of “good faith” is counsel missing? It’s not “an anticipated request to the Court” that this rule is about, it’s about a discovery disagreement between the parties that, in most cases, should be worked out/compromised between professional parties without the need for the Court to act as referee. It is not “anticipated” until after the parties are unable, using the aforementioned good faith,to compromise. The rule does not exist as some speed bump counsel must travel to run to the Court - it exists because problems should be worked out wherever and whenever possible before coming to the Court. This rule exists so the parties will discuss exactly and entirely what their problems are to try to resolve them before running to the Court . . . not to go through some charade so as to cross the “speed bump” and run to litigate some more. While this diatribe is directed to plaintiff’s counsel, given the history of this case, it is not one-sided. The Court must agree that the parties can’t agree on who is signing this order, much less anything else. Were it not for that fact, this motion would be denied without further comment.'Nuff said!
BTW, did the Judge say "speed bumps" or "my humps"?
Oh well it's Friday: