IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SEACOR MARINE, LLC, et al., :

Plaintiffs, :

vs. : CA 14-0596-CB-C

C & G BOAT WORKS, INC., et al., :

Defendants.

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on defendant Janson Graham’s motion to compel 

the plaintiffs to make complete responses to his first set of interrogatories (Doc. 73), 

filed on June 22, 2015. As set forth below, this motion is due to be and hereby is

STRICKEN.

As the parties should be aware, the undersigned “strictly enforce[s]” the 

conferencing requirements contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining 

to discovery. (Doc. 65, Rule 16(b) scheduling order, ¶ 10 & n.2 (explaining, with citation 

to a string of cases in support, that “simply corresponding with opposing counsel is not 

considered a good-faith attempt to confer or have a conference to resolve discovery 

disputes”).) While Graham has demonstrated that letters and emails have been 

exchanged between the parties regarding the substance of his motion (see Doc. 73, 

Exhibits C-E), the movant has not certified that he made a good-faith effort to confer, as 

required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s scheduling order (see 

Doc. 55, ¶ 10 & n.2), and the undersigned’s examination of the correspondence 

exchanged “does not reveal that a good faith effort was made in order to reach an 

agreement over the discovery dispute.” Velazquez-Perez v. Developers Diversified Realty 

Corp., 272 F.R.D. 310, 312 (D.P.R. 2011) (citing Aponte–Navedo v. Nalco Chem. Co., 268 

Case 1:14-cv-00596-CG-C Document 75 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 2
2

F.R.D. 31, 40–41 (D.P.R. 2010) (citing, in turn, Antonis v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 2008 

WL 169955, at *1 (D.N.H. Jan. 16, 2008) (“emails . . . do[ ] not meet the requirement that 

the parties confer in good faith about discovery issues before invoking judicial 

remedies”); Ross v. Citifinancial, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 239, 240 (S.D. Miss. 2001) (the meet and 

confer “prerequisite is not an empty formality” and “cannot be satisfied by including 

with the motion copies of correspondence that discuss the discovery at issue”) 

(emphasis added))); see also Velazquez-Perez, 272 F.R.D. at 312 (“good faith” means 

conferring “personally or through a telephone conference”).

In light of the foregoing, Graham’s motion to compel (Doc. 73) is STRICKEN. 

This striking is without prejudice to Graham re-filing a motion to compel once he is 

capable of making the required good-faith certification. The undersigned brings to the 

movant’s attention that last two sentences of footnote 2 of the Court’s April 17, 2015 

Rule 16(b) scheduling order: “Further, as the court in Shuffle Master observed, and this 

Court adopts, any good faith certification filed ‘must accurately and specifically convey 

to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties attempted to personally 

resolve the discovery dispute.’ 170 F.R.D. at 170 (emphasis added). Motions with 

certifications lacking this level of detail will be stricken.” (Doc. 65, at 5 n.2.) If this level 

of detail is not contained in any follow-up motion to compel filed by Graham, it too will 

be stricken.

DONE and ORDERED this the 24th day of June, 2015. 

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00596-CG-C Document 75 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2