1The court orders both counsel henceforth to file “motions”

as separate documents rather than in combination with other

filings. The court will only act on a “motion” that stands alone

and sets forth the relief sought and the reasons justifying that

relief. The court will not act on other filings such as a

“Notice,” a “Notice to the Court,” or a motion contained within

an objection.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

John Zerbe, Trustee

v. NH Civil No. 05-ds-021-JD

PR Civil No. 02-2357

Gabriela Alejandra Guzman Pinal

and Luis Olmos Dueas

O R D E R

The defendant, Alejandra Guzman, included a motion to compel

discovery as part of her reply to John Zerbe’s motion for

clarification.1 Zerbe has responded to Guzman’s motion.

In her motion, Guzman contends that several discovery issues

are unresolved. She states that Zerbe has not sent her

interrogatories and requests for production of documents despite

the certificate of service filed on January 12, 2006, that those

documents were served on Guzman’s counsel that day. Guzman also

states that Zerbe has not provided answers to the interrogatories

and requests for production of documents she sent to Zerbe’s

counsel on December 28, 2005. She further states that she

attempted to resolve these problems with Ms. Richardson and Mr.

Castellanos, from the Castellanos law firm, without success. 

Case 1:05-ds-00021-JD Document 61 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 3
2

Guzman also states that Zerbe has not provided appropriate notice

for taking Guzman’s deposition and has failed to disclose expert

witness reports despite the deadline, which has now passed.

Zerbe responds that the interrogatories were properly sent

to Guzman on January 12, 2006, but does not provide any response

to his failure to answer the interrogatories and requests for

production sent to him or to his failure to comply with the

expert disclosure deadline. Zerbe points out that Guzman’s

counsel is obligated to make a reasonable and good-faith effort

to reach an agreement with opposing counsel on discovery matters

before filing a motion with the court. PR LR 26(b); see also

Santos Sanchez v. Hosp. Menonita de Cayey, Inc., 218 F.R.D. 12,

13-14 (D.P.R. 2003). He contends that because Guzman’s counsel

failed to comply with LR 26(b), the court should not consider the

issues raised in the motion.

Zerbe is correct that a Rule 26(b) conference is required

and that counsel filing a discovery motion must accompany that

motion with a certification that a reasonable effort was made to

comply with Rule 26(b). Zerbe is also correct that Guzman’s

motion does not include the required certification, although the

motion recounts some efforts that were made to resolve the issues

before filing the motion. 

In light of the fact that it appears that both counsel have

outstanding discovery issues, the court orders counsel to meet

Case 1:05-ds-00021-JD Document 61 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 3
3

and to confer with respect to all outstanding discovery issues in

this case on or before June 1, 2006. Counsel are further ordered

to undertake good faith efforts to resolve all outstanding

discovery issues. If any of the discovery issues are not

resolved at that meeting, counsel are ordered to file a joint

status report with the court listing the unresolved issues on or

before June 8, 2006. The court will not consider discovery

issues that are not included in the joint status report. 

Counsel are reminded that many deadlines have passed and

that the end of discovery, except for the deposition of Guzman,

is at hand. Unexcused failure to comply with discovery deadlines

and obligations may result in sanctions, including the

possibility of dismissal or default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37;

Young v. Gordon, 330 F.3d 76, 80 (1st Cir. 2003).

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to compel

(document no. 57) is denied. Counsel are ordered to meet and

confer as is provided in this order.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

 (Sitting by designation.)

May 23, 2006

cc: Alfredo Castellanos-Bayouth, Esquire

Angel E. Rotger-Sabat, Esquire

USDC-PR, Clerk 

Case 1:05-ds-00021-JD Document 61 Filed 05/23/06 Page 3 of 3