Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01794/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01794-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

 1 The Court interprets this as a motion to compel discovery responses.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ramona D. Lopez.,

Plaintiff,

v.

John E. Potter, Postmaster General,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1794-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is the “Motion to Compel Defendant to Adhere to Judicial

Proceedings by law for the response of The Production of Documents and Things &

Interrogatories filed by Plaintiff”(Doc. 34)1

. In the Court’s Order entered April 9, 2007, the

parties were notified of the Court’s policies regarding discovery disputes. The Order

provides in pertinent part, 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event of a discovery dispute, the

parties shall contact the Court to request a telephonic conference prior to

filing any discovery motions. The parties shall not contact the Court

regarding a discovery dispute unless they have been unable to resolve the

dispute themselves, despite personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so.

The parties shall not file any written materials related to a discovery dispute

or discovery motion without express leave of Court. If the Court does order

written submissions, the movant shall include a statement certifying that

counsel could not satisfactorily resolve the matter despite personal consultation

and sincere efforts to do so, in accordance with LRCiv 7.2(j) of the Rules of

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. 

Case 2:05-cv-01794-SMM Document 36 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 2
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

 2The parties are advised that all future filings must comply with all Local Rules

of Practice, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all rules of this particular Court. More

specifically, the parties shall pay particular attention to the filing requirements pursuant

to LRCiv 7.1. Failure to comply with the Local Rules will result in the Court striking the

documents. 

- 2 -

In the pending case, the parties failed to notify the Court of any apparent discovery

dispute via telephone prior to filing the pending motion or the response thereto. Furthermore,

the Court acknowledges that in his response, Defendant notifies the Court that he in fact

served the subject discovery responses prior to Plaintiff filing the present motion. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 34).2

DATED this 12th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01794-SMM Document 36 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 2