Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00148/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00148-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

 Defendants respond that plaintiff served no discovery request before filing the present

motion. 

2

 Paragraph 5 of the General Order of this court entered on November 22, 1993 provides as

follows: 

The court will not consider any motion relating to discovery, such as a motion to

compel or a motion for protective order, unless the motion is accompanied by a

written certification that the moving party has made reasonable good-faith effort to

reach agreement with opposing counsel on the matters set forth in the motion.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 37(a)(2)(B), as amended on December 1, 1993,

require litigants to seek to resolve discovery disputes by a good faith conference before seeking

court intervention. Discovery motions filed pursuant to these Rules must be accompanied by a

certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

PAUL POGUE, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06CV148-MHT

) (WO)

TONY CHANDLER, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of plaintiff’s “Motion for the Court to Compel the Alabama Forestry

Commission, and its employee Tony Chandler to Produce Useful Data” (Doc. #33), it is

ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. The motion does not demonstrate that plaintiff has

sought this information from the defendants using the discovery mechanisms provided in the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.1

 Additionally, even if plaintiff had sought the information through

discovery requests to the opposing parties, the present motion does not include a certification that

the movant has, in good faith, conferred with opposing counsel in an attempt to resolve the

discovery dispute without the intervention of the court.2

Case 2:06-cv-00148-MHT-SRW Document 35 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 2
parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. 

2

It is further ORDERED that defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. # 34) is DENIED, and the

remainder of defendant’s motion is construed as a response to plaintiff’s motion to compel.

DONE, this 1st day of November, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 2:06-cv-00148-MHT-SRW Document 35 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 2