Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01360/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01360-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SANDPIPER RESORTS )

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, )

et al., )) Plaintiffs, ) 2:08-cv-01360 JWS ) vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION ) GLOBAL REALTY INVESTMENTS, ) [Re: Motion at Docket 201]

LLC, et al., )) Defendants. ))

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 201, plaintiffs Sandpiper Resorts Development Corporation and

Dourian Foster Investments, Inc. (“plaintiffs”) move to compel production of certain

documents. Third-party defendant Mohr, Hackett, Pederson, Blakely & Randolph, P.C.

(“Mohr Hackett”) responds at docket 231. Plaintiffs’ reply is at docket 233. Oral

argument was not requested and would not assist the court.

-1-

Case 2:08-cv-01360-JWS Document 254 Filed 06/05/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Parties’ Obligation to Confer in Good Faith

Plaintiff moves to compel production of various documents from Mohr Hackett. 

Mohr Hackett argues that the documents are privileged. Prior to being named a thirdparty defendant, Mohr Hackett responded to a subpoena to produce documents. Mohr

Hackett provided approximately three thousand pages of documents and a privilege log. 

Mohr Hackett provided a supplemental privilege log on January 10, 2012, and another

on April 16, 2012. Plaintiff filed the present motion on March 23, 2012. 

Local Rule 7.2(j) provides that “[n]o discovery motion will be considered or

decided unless a statement of moving counsel is attached thereto certifying that after

personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so, counsel have been unable to

satisfactorily resolve the matter.”1

 Plaintiffs’ counsel attached a declaration stating that

he conferred with representatives of Mohr Hackett via email.2 It is clear, however, from

the attached email exchange and representations of counsel that there was no personal

consultation.3

 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) states that a “motion [to compel] must

include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer

with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it

without court action.”4

 The email exchange indicates that plaintiffs’ counsel did attempt

to confer with Mohr Hackett in good faith.5

 It also appears that Mohr Hackett was

1

LRCiv 7.2(j).

2

Doc. 201-2 at 3.

3

Id. at 4, 10.

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1)

5

Doc. 201-2 at 4–11.

-2-

Case 2:08-cv-01360-JWS Document 254 Filed 06/05/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unresponsive to plaintiffs’ counsel’s efforts.6 However, plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration

does not certify that he attempted to confer in good faith–it erroneously states that he

did confer. In any event, the parties have not met their obligation to confer in good faith,

and there has been no personal consultation in an effort to resolve this dispute.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, plaintiffs’ motion to compel at docket 201 is DENIED

without prejudice to renewal if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute after

personal consultation. It is ORDERED that the parties confer in person at a mutually

agreeable time and location within ten days from the date of this order. If the parties are

unable to agree on a time or location, the parties shall meet at the office of plaintiff’s

counsel at 9:00 a.m. on June 15, 2012.

DATED this 5th day of June 2012.

 /s/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

Id. at 4, 10.

-3-

Case 2:08-cv-01360-JWS Document 254 Filed 06/05/12 Page 3 of 3