Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00760/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00760-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Oliver Reishus and Roxanne Brinker,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Efran Almaraz and Alejandra Estrada,

individually as husband and wife, d/b/a EA

Trucking; Paulo Egusquiza and Jane Doe

Egusquiza, individually and as husband

and wife, d/b/a Best Tires Distributors;

Eduardo Merino, a single man,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0760-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Eduardo

Merino to Appear for Deposition. (Doc. 80) For the reasons set forth below, the Court

will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion without prejudice. 

Despite several written warnings to Plaintiffs that they must comply with

the Local Rules, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel fail to comply with LRCiv 7.2(j), Rules of

Practice, effective December 1, 2010, and Rule 37(a)((1), Fed.R.Civ.P. (“[T]he motion

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.”). These rules mandate moving counsel to attach a

certification that “after personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so,” counsel have

been unable to satisfactorily resolve the matter. Plaintiffs’ counsel provides no affidavit

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 83 Filed 01/12/11 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

28

- 2 -

or certification signed under penalty of perjury detailing his good faith attempts with

opposing counsel to resolve the discovery dispute prior to seeking a judicial resolution of

the issue. Personal consultation requires either face-to-face communication or telephone

communication. Letters, faxes and e-mails are insufficient. Hart v. Agnos, 2008 WL

2008966, *7 (D.Ariz. 2008) and IMA North American, Inc. V. Marlyn Nutraceutical,

Inc., 2007 WL 2391009, * 1 n.1 (D.Ariz. 2007).

The Ninth Circuit has “[e]xplain[ed], yet again, the importance of following

a district court’s local rules. ‘District courts have broad discretion in interpreting and

applying their local rules.’” Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir.

2010) (quoting Miranda v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1983)).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Eduardo

Merino to Appear for Deposition, doc. 80, is DENIED without prejudice. 

Dated this 11th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00760-LOA Document 83 Filed 01/12/11 Page 2 of 2