United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
BENSON DISTRICT JUDGE
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
M. WARNER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge
Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). Before the court is Craft Smith, LLC and
Michaels Stores, Inc.'s (collectively,
“Counterclaim Defendants”) motion for a
protective order (the “Motion”). The court has
carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the
parties. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of
Practice for the United States District Court for the
District of Utah (the “Local Rules”), the court
has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will
determine the Motion on the basis of the written memoranda.
See DUCivR 7-1(f).
Motion seeks an order staying eight depositions (the
“EC Depositions”) noticed by EC Design, LLC
(“EC Design”) until after resolution of
Counterclaim Defendants' pending motion to dismiss (the
“Motion to Dismiss”). The EC Depositions were
noticed to take place between March 14 and March 26,
2018. Counterclaim Defendants argue that good
cause exists for staying the Depositions because if the
Motion to Dismiss is granted, and all of EC Designs'
counterclaims are dismissed, the expense and burden of the EC
Depositions can be avoided.
Design does not directly address this argument. Instead, EC
Design takes issue with the timing and procedural flaws in
Counterclaim Defendants' request for a protective order.
EC Design asserts that it first noticed the EC Depositions
after Counterclaim Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss,
and the Motion was not filed until after EC Design modified
the dates of the EC Depositions at Counterclaim
Defendants' request. Moreover, EC Design asserts that
Counterclaim Defendants did not comply with Local Rule 37-1,
because the Motion exceeds 500 words and did not include a
certification that the parties had met and conferred in an
effort to resolve the dispute. See DUCivR 37-1(a).
court finds that there is good cause to stay the EC
Depositions. The need to expend time and resources to conduct
the EC Depositions may indeed be mooted if the Motion to
Dismiss is granted. For the same reason, the court finds that
there is good cause to stay all discovery in this action
pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss.
the court admonishes the parties that, in the future, failure
to comply with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure will not be tolerated. Motions requesting the
resolution by court order of disputes arising under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 and 45 must follow the
short form discovery format and procedure. See
DUCivR 37-1(a)(1), (3). Such motions may not exceed 500 words
and “must include a certification that the parties made
reasonable efforts to reach an agreement on the disputed
matters.” See DUCivR 37-1(a)(3), (4).
Counterclaim Defendants' Motion arises under Rule 26,
accordingly, should have complied with this rule.
Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the
court and the parties to “construe, administer, and
employ” the rules “to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. The court considers a
meaningful meet-and-confer to be essential to the
parties' obligation to secure the speedy and inexpensive
resolution of this action. Therefore, the court will not
consider further motions that do not contain a certification
that the parties have satisfied their meet-and-confer
obligations under the rules.
on the foregoing, the court hereby GRANTS
the Motion and ORDERS that the EC
Depositions and all other discovery in this action is
STAYED pending a hearing and ruling on the
Motion to Dismiss. Within fourteen (14) days after the
resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, if the Motion to Dismiss
is denied in whole or in part:
1. the parties shall file a stipulated amended scheduling
2. if the parties cannot agree, either party shall file a
motion for the entry of ...