Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00273/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00273-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY, )

L.P., et al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05CV273-MEF

) [WO]

DEMARK LIGGINS, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

On 20 April 2006, the plaintiff filed an alternative Motion To Compel defendant’s

discovery responses (Doc. # 35). Upon review of the motion, the court is unable to discern

the responses which the plaintiff seeks or the responses which were presumably withheld.

Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to set forth the efforts made to resolve the alleged discovery

dispute without the court’s intervention. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion be DENIED pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 26(c) and 37(a)(2)(B) and ¶5 of the General Order of this court entered on 22

November 1993.

The applicable provisions of this court's General Order reads 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 a reasonable good-faith effort to

reach agreement with opposing counsel on the matters set forth

Case 2:05-cv-00273-MEF-WC Document 37 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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 parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action.

This court has interpreted the requirement to confer as a requirement that the parties conduct

an in-person conference to facilitate a good faith effort to settle the dispute. 

The court notes that the plaintiff’s discovery requests appear to have been propounded

on or about 24 February 2006. Thus, if the defendant has not responded to the interrogatories

and the requests for production, the time for objections, pursuant to Rules 33(b)(3) and 34(b)

of the FED. R. CIV. P., has expired. Thus, in the absence of responses or objections,

regardless of good faith conferences, the defendant may not assert objections at this time.

DONE this 27 day of April, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00273-MEF-WC Document 37 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 2