Ross v. Citifinancial, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
30 later published cases cite this decision. The 22 that cite it most often are listed here.
- In re Presto (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas 2006)
- Anzures v. Prologis Texas I LLC (District Court, W.D. Texas 2012)
- Aponte-Navedo v. Nalco Chemical Co. (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 2010)
- Amy v. KMART OF WASHINGTON LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)
- Amy v. Kmart of Washington, LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)
- Mills v. The UPS Store, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 2025)
- Ramos v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 2025)
- Braswell v. Pelican Cove Grill, LLC (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 2025)
- White v. County of Suffolk (District Court, E.D. New York 2024)
- Multi-State Partnership for Prevention, LLC v. Kennedy (District Court, E.D. New York 2024)
- Walker LP v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 2023)
- T G S Properties L L C v. Covington Specialty Insurance Co (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 2023)
- Riverbend Environmental Services, LLC v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 2023)
- SASC, LLC v. School Supply Connection, Inc., <i>et al.</i> (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2023)
- Humphrey v. LeBlanc (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 2022)
- Ricard v. Sam's East, Inc. (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 2022)
- Lowe v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 2022)
- Jones v. McDonough (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 2022)
- Lauter v. SZR Second Baton Rouge Assisted Living, L.L.C. (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 2021)
- Plate, LLC v. Elite Tactical Systems, LLC (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 2020)
- McAllister v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (District Court, M.D. Louisiana 2019)
- Dachman v. Maestre-Grau (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 2019)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Motion of Plaintiffs to Compel Discovery Responses and for Protective Order. The Court, in its review of the motion, noted that Plaintiffs failed to attach a Certificate of Good Faith. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A) requires a party moving to compel discovery to “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer
This prerequisite is not an empty formality. On the contrary, it has been the Court’s experience that obliging attorneys to certify to the Court that they conferred in good faith results, in a large number of cases, in resolution of discovery disputes by counsel without intervention of the Court. Thus, the requirement of a certificate cannot be satisfied by including with the motion copies of correspondence that discuss the discovery at issue. Rather, both attorneys must certify that they conferred on the discovery issues in an attempt to resolve them. The Court is unwilling to decipher letters between counsel to conclude that the requirement has been met. Form # 4 is a simple requirement and should be utilized.
Because no Certificate of Good Faith is attached to the Motion to Compel, the motion is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile the motion or file a subsequent Motion to Compel with appropriate attachments.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), like Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A), requires a certification of good faith. And, Local Rule 37.1(A) applies to all discovery motions. For the foregoing reasons, Motion of Plaintiffs for Protective Order is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile the motion or file a subsequent Motion for Protective Order with appropriate attachments.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion of Plaintiffs [39-1] to Compel and for Protective Order is hereby denied without prejudice.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.