ACECO VALVES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Brad NEAL, et al., Defendants Case No. CIV-21-368-D United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma Signed November 22, 2023 Counsel Adam C. Doverspike, Christopher S. Thrutchley, Craig A. Fitzgerald, Barrett L. Powers, Jennifer Rae Annis, Gable & Gotwals, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff. Andrew R. Davis, Randall K. Calvert, Calvert Law Firm, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant Brad Neal. Jonathan K. Butts, Tulsa, OK, Kenneth L. Hird, The Hird Law Firm PLLC, Broken Arrow, OK, for Defendants Orvel Wolf, II, O.W. Valve, LLC. Clark O. Brewster, Guy A. Fortney, Ryan Nigh, Brewster & De Angelis, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant Patricia Wolf. DeGiusti, Timothy D., United States District Judge ORDER *1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Aceco Valves, LLC's Motion to Compel Neal to Respond to Discovery Requests [Doc. No. 125]. Upon review of the Motion and supporting brief, the Court finds it fails to comply with LCvR37.1, which requires that a motion relating to discovery must be accompanied by a written certification “that counsel personally have met and conferred in good faith and, after a sincere attempt to resolve differences, have been unable to reach an accord.” Although Plaintiff includes a LCvR37.1 certification in its Motion, assertions made by Mr. Neal in his Response lead the Court to believe that the parties’ meet-and-confers lacked “a sincere attempt to resolve differences,” as required by LCvR37.1. See Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel [Doc. No. 130] at 6 (noting that the parties conferred “in [p]art” and that Mr. Neal was “under the impression the parties were still working through issues when Aceco filed its Motion to Compel”). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Neal to Respond to Discovery Requests [Doc. No. 125] is DENIED without prejudice to refiling upon full compliance with LCvR37.1. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 2023.