Majors v. Reeves

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DILLONGER J. MAJORS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 1:24-cv-00233-SNLJ
)
JACOB REEVES, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery [Doc.
51]. For the following reasons, the motion must be denied.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a motion to compel “must
include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer
with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it
without court action.” Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 37(a)(1). Similarly, Local Rule 3.04 provides:
The Court will not consider any motion relating to discovery and disclosure unless
it contains a statement that [plaintiff] has conferred in person or by telephone with
[defendants’] counsel in good faith or has made reasonable efforts to do so, but
that after sincere efforts to resolve their dispute, [they] are unable to reach an
accord. This statement also shall recite the date, time and manner of such
conference, and the names of the individuals participating therein, or shall state
with specificity the efforts made to confer with [defendants’] counsel.
Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 37 or Local Rule 3.04. The Court recognizes that
plaintiff’s incarceration makes conferring with defendants’ counsel in person or by
telephone difficult, if not impossible. However, plaintiff can communicate in writing
with defendants’ counsel, which would be sufficient. Pro se litigants are not excused
Case: 1:24-cv-00233-SNLJ Doc. #: 52 Filed: 02/05/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528
(8th Cir. 1984).
Furthermore, plaintiff has not provided enough information for the Court to order
the production of any documents or other evidence. He has not provided a copy of the
discovery in question or any details about when it was served on the defendants.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery [Doc.
51] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of February, 2026.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:24-cv-00233-SNLJ Doc. #: 52 Filed: 02/05/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>