-FHM Bennett v. Johnson et al, No. 4:2009cv00612 - Document 119 (N.D. Okla. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 108 Motion to Compel; denying 109 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (jcm, Dpty Clk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA EDWARD BENNETT, Plaintiff, vs. Case No.09-CV-612-TCK-FHM LASHEDDA JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff s Motion to Compel Discovery Request [Dkt. 108] and Plaintiff s Request for Motion Regarding Sufficiency of Answers/Objections [Dkt. 109] are DENIED. The motions do not contain a certificate of service as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Nor do the motions otherwise indicate that they were served on counsel for Defendants.1 Defendants have not filed a response, which further indicates that they have not received the motions. Under these circumstances the motions cannot be granted.2 SO ORDERED this 12th day of August, 2011. 1 2 The attachm ents to the Motion to Com pel [Dkt. 108, p. 2] are unreadable. Motions for orders com pelling discovery m ust include a certification that the m ovant has in good faith conferred or attem pted to confer with the person or party failing to m ake disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(A)(1). Local Civil Rule 37.1 provides that the court will refuse to hear m otions for discovery that do not advise that counsel have personally m et and conferred in good faith and, after a sincere attem pt to resolve difference, they have been unable to reach an accord. The subject m otions do not contain the required certification.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
