Murray v. State University of New York State University College at Brockport et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
DONALD F. MURRAY,
DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
22-CV-6306CJS
v.
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK STATE
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AT BROCKPORT,
et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
Currently pending before the Court is a motion to compel filed by plaintiff
Donald F. Murray. (Docket # 36). Murray seeks an order compelling defendants to supplement
their responses to plaintiff’s document demands and to provide a date certain for the deposition
of Heidi Macpherson, the President of defendant State University of New York University
College at Brockport. (Id.).
In support of the motion, Murray has submitted the declaration of his attorney,
Gerald T. Walsh, Esq., who certifies that he attempted to resolve the discovery disputes with
defendants’ counsel prior to filing the motion. (Docket # 36-1 at ¶ 3). The Court’s review of
plaintiff’s submission, however, demonstrates that the parties have not fully exhausted their
obligation to meet and confer in good faith prior to seeking Court intervention to resolve the
issues raised by the motion.
Significantly, defendants first provided written responses to Murray’s document
demands on June 28, 2024. (Docket ## 36-1 at ¶ 3; 36-3). Approximately one month later – and
four days prior to the deadline for motions to compel – Walsh sent a deficiency letter to
Case 6:22-cv-06306-CJS-CDH Document 37 Filed 08/01/24 Page 1 of 3

2
defendants’ attorney Michele Romance Crain, Esq. (Docket ## 36-1 at ¶ 7; 36-4). Crain
responded by email later that day advising Walsh that she had just completed a trial and that she
would be out of the office on vacation the following week. (Docket # 36-4 at 5). Crain indicated
that she would meet with her client upon her return to review the purported deficiencies
identified by plaintiff. (Id.). Walsh responded that he was “ok” with Crain’s proposed plan but
that he was cognizant of pending deadlines and would “think about it.” (Id.). The following
Tuesday, apparently without any further discussion between the parties, plaintiff filed the
pending motion. (Docket # 36).
Applicable rules of civil procedure require the parties to confer or attempt to
confer in good faith to try to resolve discovery disputes without court intervention before filing a
motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). On this record, I find that the failure to meet and
confer warrants denial of Murray’s motion without prejudice to renewal. See Williams v. City of
Rochester, 2018 WL 739097, *1 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (“[t]he failure to meet and confer is
unacceptable, contravenes the parties’ obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and justifies the denial of [plaintiff’s] motion”).
Any renewed motion to compel must demonstrate that the parties have fully
exhausted their obligation to meet and confer to resolve or narrow disputes before seeking court
intervention. Moreover, any renewed motion must identify, with specificity, the precise disputes
for which Murray seeks Court resolution. A party may not simply attach the requests, responses,
and the parties’ meet and confer correspondence and expect the Court on its own to identify any
discovery disputes that appear unresolved. Similarly, to the extent the parties are unable to agree
upon Macpherson’s deposition, any request for intervention must clearly identify the issues, as
well as the expected relevance of her testimony. Citations to relevant evidence should be
Case 6:22-cv-06306-CJS-CDH Document 37 Filed 08/01/24 Page 2 of 3

3
included. It is unreasonable to expect the Court to review eighty pages of testimony and guess as
to plaintiff’s view concerning the relevancy of the requested witness’s testimony. Rather, a
properly supported motion should draw the Court’s attention to the relevant testimony (by
reference to the page and line where the testimony can be found) and explain, in the context of
plaintiff’s claims, the anticipated relevance of the witness’s testimony.
On this record, Murray’s motion to compel (Docket # 36) is DENIED without
prejudice to renewal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
August 1, 2024
Case 6:22-cv-06306-CJS-CDH Document 37 Filed 08/01/24 Page 3 of 3