Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02233/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02233-0/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

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gary Austin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Horizon Human Services. Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-02233-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (doc. 33) and

defendant’s response (doc. 36). Plaintiff did not file a reply and the time for doing so has

expired. See LRCiv 7.2(d). 

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery on August 13, 2013. Any 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). No discovery motion will be

considered or decided unless the movant attaches to his motion a certification that “after

personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so,” the parties have been unable to

satisfactorily resolve the matter. LRCiv 7.2(j); Hart v. Agnos, 2008 WL 2008966, *7 (D.

Ariz. 2008). 

Plaintiff provides no affidavit, declaration, or certification signed under penalty of

Case 2:12-cv-02233-FJM Document 39 Filed 09/10/13 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 -

perjury, detailing his good faith attempts to resolve the discovery dispute with opposing

counsel prior to seeking a judicial resolution of the issue. Instead, the motion contains one

sentence stating that the “Plaintiff has engaged in good-faith efforts to resolve this situation

with the Defendant and has reached an impasse.” Motion at 1. This is not sufficient under

the Rules. Because plaintiff did not file a reply, he does not dispute defendant’s argument

that the motion to compel does not comply with either the federal or local rules. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc. 33).

Because it is difficult for a party to successfully manage the complexities of a lawsuit

unaided by a lawyer, we urge plaintiff to seek the advice of counsel. If he does not have a

lawyer, he may wish to call the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar

Association at 602-257-4434.

DATED this 10th day of September, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02233-FJM Document 39 Filed 09/10/13 Page 2 of 2