Julian Pierce Williams v. Paul Olthoff, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied without prejudice a pro se plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories. The court held that the plaintiff failed to identify the interrogatories, certify a good-faith conferral effort, request the required telephonic conference, or otherwise comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Local Rule 37.1, and the court’s prior order.

Holdings

1. A party seeking an order compelling discovery must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), Local Rule 37.1, and the court's prescribed pre-motion procedures, including a good-faith meet-and-confer and, when required, a telephone conference with the magistrate judge. Because Plaintiff did not comply, his motion to compel was procedurally improper and was denied without prejudice.
2. Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable local rules, and court orders; Plaintiff's pro se status did not excuse his failure to comply with the discovery-motion prerequisites.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's motion to compel should be granted when he failed to identify or attach the interrogatories at issue and failed to comply with the meet-and-confer, certification, and pre-motion conference requirements.
2. Whether Plaintiff's pro se status excused his noncompliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the local rules, and the court's prior discovery order.

Disposition

other