Skip to main content

Friday Fodder -- Magistrate Judge Goodman and the Meet-and-Confer Requirement.

It's mind-boggling how much time and energy has been devoted to the intricacies of the meet-and-confer requirement -- something that is supposed to save us some time and energy.

Perfect for a Friday, enjoy this nice rant on the topic:
Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), “Pre‐Filing Conferences Required of Counsel,” requires, except in a few enumerated circumstances, that, prior to filing any motion, movant’s counsel must “make reasonable effort to confer (orally or in writing), with all parties or non‐parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised in the motion.” The rule requires that each motion include a conferral statement showing what, if any, efforts were made to resolve the subject of the motion, and it provides that failure to comply with the rule may because to deny the motion.

Despite Government counsel’s argument to the contrary, the Motion at issue here is not one of those enumerated exceptions to the local conferral rule. Although a motion to dismiss is one of the exceptions to the mandatory pre‐filing conferral requirement, the Motion is, despite its title, actually a motion for sanctions brought pursuant to Rule 37. The specific sanction sought, and in fact the only sanction sought, is that the only claim challenging the requested forfeiture be dismissed. Be that as it may, and despite the styling of the Motion as a motion to dismiss, the Motion is, quite clearly, a motion for discovery sanctions under Rule 37 ‐‐ and is therefore subject to the Local Rule 7.1 conferral requirement.

The Motion itself expressly relies upon Rule 37, the rule outlining the sanctions available for failures to comply with discovery obligations. [ECF No. 87, p. 1]. Although dismissal is a remedy mentioned in the rule, it is only one of several types of relief listed as available sanctions. Government counsel acknowledged at the Hearing that the motion to “dismiss” is actually a discovery motion relying on Rule 37.
A movant cannot avoid the Local Rule 7.1 conferral requirement simply by styling its motion as if it were one of those specifically enumerated exceptions to the mandatory pre‐filing conferral rule. The mere fact that Government counsel decided to pursue only the most‐severe discovery sanctions remedy available, dismissal, does not transform the motion from a discovery motion (which requires a pre‐filing conferral) to a motion to dismiss (which does not). The Motion, which expressly mentions Rule 37 as the legal authority for the requested sanctions, failed to include a conferral statement, and this failure alone is adequate grounds to deny the Motion.4

If Government counsel had contacted Claimant’s counsel before filing the Motion and clearly advised of the Government’s belief that Claimant’s stated reasons for canceling the depositions were part of a strategy to avoid giving deposition testimony in person in the United States and of the Government’s intent to seek an order dismissing or striking Claimant’s claim for failure to appear at noticed depositions, then Claimant’s counsel may have been able to persuade Claimant to set aside his stated concerns and appear for a deposition. But the consequences of such a hypothetical conferral are unknown because the mandatory pre‐filing conference never occurred. The Undersigned therefore denies the Motion on this ground alone.
Wait -- there's more?

Comments

  1. Next time , a rant by macadoodle please. Her nastiness when drowning in a glass of water is second to none.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think that's right. The Local Rule does not require you to confer on a motion to dismiss, sure, but it also does not require you to confer on any motion to "involuntarily dismiss" a case, which the motion here asked for. I assume the logic is that no plaintiff would voluntarily agree to dismissal of his or her lawsuit, regardless of the procedural mechanism used.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Happy Friday, SFL!!
    Stay cool. Stay Awesome. :))

    ReplyDelete
  4. Happy Friday SFL, GW, and GB!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wishing you all a safe weekend and don't do anything I wouldn't do, which leaves you really really open.

    ReplyDelete
  6. GW--- Stay naughty & have fun.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mags have judge envy.

    Mags issue "reports".

    Mags are appointed by judges.

    Mag.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Does this gas bag seriously think a phone call might have made any difference?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Platitudinous horses ass

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Kind of Federal Judge!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:
A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case. The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”
Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 o…

Honoring Richard C. Seavey

I drank a shit-ton of bourbon last night. Enough to float a battleship.

My head hurts. But not as much as my heart.

We lost another lawyer over the weekend. Not someone who will receive facebook accolades and other public claims of friendship and statements that he shaped and changed lives and careers. Just a guy who did the best he could with what he had. Every day. And he did very, very well to be the best person he could be. 
Richard Seavey was a profoundly private person. In his 49 years, he walked through more than his share of trials and tribulations, mostly asking for no help, leaning on no one. 

Richard was a fantastic lawyer. He could try a case. He could "litigate" a case. He could mediate and settle a case. He was nuanced. He bent but never broke. The blustery Miami lawyer never scared him. To the contrary, he found humor in it, studying it like a science project. Richard never got too high or too low. He was good at lawyering, but you got the f…

First Carnival Triumph Lawsuit on File!

It was filed in the SD FL (of course) and is pending before Judge Graham.

Check it out here.

The lawyer on the pleading is Marcus R. Spagnoletti.