Touqan v. Cell Fix, Inc.

M.D. Florida

Touqan v. Cell Fix, Inc.

DecidedSeptember 26, 2023

Docket8:22-cv-02505

StatusUnknown

This text of Touqan v. Cell Fix, Inc. (Touqan v. Cell Fix, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Touqan v. Cell Fix, Inc., (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

OMAR TOUQAN,

Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 8:22-cv-02505-KKM-AAS

CELL FIX, INC.,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

ORDER 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. 1 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

OMAR TOUQAN,

Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 8:22-cv-02505-KKM-AAS

CELL FIX, INC.,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

ORDER 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. 1 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Touqan v. Cell Fix, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/touqan-v-cell-fix-inc-flmd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack