TOUQAN
v.
CELL FIX, INC.
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.
The court held that the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery is denied without prejudice because counsel failed to comply with the local rule's pre-motion conference requirement.
Plaintiff moved to compel discovery responses from the defendant. Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter demanding supplemental responses, but did not enga…
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 Omar Touqan moves to compel Defendant Cell Fix, Inc. (Cell Fix) to provide complete discovery responses to his Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 26). Mr. Touqan’s counsel attempted to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) M.D. Fla., by sending Cell Fix’s counsel a letter demanding supplemental discovery responses by September 22, 2023. (See Doc. 26-3). Local Rule 3.01(g) provides that “[b]efore filing a motion in a civil action, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, or to certify a class, the movant must confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the motion. 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, such as a letter without further discussion.”). Mr. Touqan’s counsel’s letter does not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g), M.D. Fla. Thus, Mr. Tougan’s motion to compel (Doc. 26) is DENIED without prejudice. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 26, 2023. Aranda. Arne ih Sane.
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge