ROSE
v.
COCA-COLA BEVERAGES FLORIDA, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff Rose sought to compel defendant Coca-Cola to provide more complete responses to discovery requests. The court denied her amended motion to compel because she failed to meaningfully confer with opposing counsel as required by Local Rule 3.01(g), despite being directed to do so by the court.
The amended motion to compel is denied because plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory conferral requirement of Local Rule 3.01(g), specifically by failing to meaningfully confer with defendant and file the required notice of unresolved issues by the court-ordered deadline.
[1] A motion to compel discovery may be denied if the movant fails to comply with local rules requiring a good faith conferral with opposing counsel prior to filing.
[2] Local rules requiring conferral before filing a motion to compel contemplate a substantive discussion aimed at resolving disputed issues, not a one-way communication.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the movant has conferred with counsel for Defendant, and has been unable to agree on any resolution to these matters. To date, all requests made by movement to address these matters without judicial intervention have not been responded to by Defendant.”
Rose's certification of conferral in her amended motion to compel
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRose filed an initial motion to compel without conferring with Coca-Cola, which the court denied without prejudice. She refiled an amended motion with…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Compel cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Esther Rose requests the court compel Defendant Coca-Cola Beverages Florida, LLC (Coca-Cola) to provide more complete responses to Ms. Rose's requests for production. (Doc. 29). Ms. Rose originally filed the motion to compel without conferring with opposing counsel as required by Local Rule 3.01(g). (Doc. 23). For this failure, the undersigned denied the motion without prejudice. (Doc. 28).
Ms. Rose refiled the motion with an updated Local Rule 3.01(g) certification that reads, “the movant has conferred with counsel for Defendant, and has been unable to agree on any resolution to these matters. To date, all requests made by movement to address these matters without judicial intervention have not been responded to by Defendant.” (Doc. 29, p. 7). Coca-Cola responded in opposition and alleged Ms. Rose's conferral fails to
1
meet the requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g). (Doc. 30). This response sparked a back-and-forth by the parties regarding whether the amended motion to compel (Doc. 29) complies with the conferral requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g). (See Docs. 31, 33). The undersigned then directed Ms. Rose to meaningfully confer¹ with Coca-Cola and file a notice on the docket outlining which issues could not be resolved by December 27, 2024. Ms. Rose failed to do so Accordingly, Ms. Rose's Amended Motion to Compel (Doc. 29) is
DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 7, 2025.
Amanda Arnold Samone
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge
2
[fn 1]: The purpose of Local Rule 3.01(g) “is to require the parties to communicate and resolve certain types of disputes without court intervention.” Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 876, 878 (M.D. Fla. 1996). The term “communicate" has been defined as "to speak to each other in person or by telephone, in a good faith attempt to resolve disputed issues.” Davis v. Apfel, No. 6:98-CV-651-ORL-22A, 2000 WL 1658575 at n. 1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2000); see also See Fox v. Lake Erie Coll. of Osteopathic Med., Inc., No. 8:19-CV-2795-T-60AAS, 2021 WL 9594006, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2021) (“This pre-filing requirement contemplates a substantive discussion, not a one-way communication[.]”).