PATRICIA DURON Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION Defendant EP-23-CV-00324-KC-MAT United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division Filed April 12, 2024 Counsel Alfonso Bafidis-Rodriguez, Bafidis Law Injury Firm, Helotes, TX, for Plaintiff. Brian Brack, Isaac Abraham Gutierrez, Ray, Pena, McChristian, El Paso, TX, Jeff H. Ray, Ray Pena McChristian, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendant. Torres, Miguel A., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 The Court considers Plaintiff Patricia Duron's (“Plaintiff”) “Motion to Compel Defendant's Discovery Responses and Production” (ECF No. 38) (“Motion”). On March 8, 2024, United States District Judge Kathleen Cardone referred the above-referenced Motion to the undersigned for a determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Appendix C to the Local Rules. For the reasons set forth below, the Court determines that at this time Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED without prejudice. I. BACKGROUND In this personal injury action, Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on a wet floor on or near the entrance of Defendant's store. Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 25. On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. Defendant filed its “Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel” (ECF No. 40) (“Response”) on March 7, 2024. The discovery deadline is June 28, 2024. Second Am. Scheduling Order 1, ECF No. 32. II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires a party moving for an order compelling disclosure or discovery to “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. P. 37(a)(1). A party seeking discovery may move to compel an answer or production if the responding party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33 or fails to produce documents requested under Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The party resisting discovery must show specifically how each interrogatory or request is not relevant or specifically state a valid objection thereto. See McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990). Conclusory objections such as “overly broad, burdensome, and oppressive” are not adequate to voice a successful objection. Id. The court may decline to compel, and at its option, may limit the extent of discovery if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii); Crosswhite v. Lexington Ins. Co., 321 F. App'x 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (“Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly.”). III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff's motion seeks full and adequate responses to five interrogatories and eighteen requests for production. Mot. at 3-7. The certificate to conference contained in Plaintiff's motion states that “Plaintiff's counsel certifies that he has engaged in good-faith efforts to resolve the discovery disputes addressed in this Motion [and] [t]he parties cannot come to an agreement.” Id. at 1. Additionally, Plaintiff includes a footnote referencing Exhibit A “Plaintiff's First Attempt to Confer Letter” (“Plaintiff's first letter”) to support Plaintiff's certification. Id. However, Defendant argues in its response that Plaintiff's Motion was prematurely filed on February 23, 2024. Resp. at 2-3. *2 Plaintiff's first letter identified inadequate responses and objections to interrogatories 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14, and requests for production 2-9, 14, 15, 18-36, 39, and 41. Mot., Ex. A 1-2, ECF No. 38-1. On February 1, 2024, six days before the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests, Defendant served Plaintiff with its “Second Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production,” which addressed some of the issues regarding the requests for production raised in Plaintiff's first letter. Resp., Ex. B 2-15, ECF No. 40-2. Defendant, however, did not address the issues regarding the interrogatories raised in Plaintiff's first letter. On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff issued her “Second Attempt to Confer On Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories” (“Plaintiff's second letter”). In her second letter, Plaintiff only identifies Defendant's “deficient discovery responses” to the following interrogatories: 4, 12, 15-17, and 20-23. Resp., Ex. C 1-2, ECF No. 40-3. Defendant states Plaintiff's February 23rd Motion was premature considering Plaintiff issued the second discovery conferral letter with a February 28, 2024, deadline to respond. Resp. at 2-3. Further, Defendant identified that the interrogatories in Plaintiff's second letter are not the same interrogatories requested in the first letter. Id. at 3. Despite Plaintiff filing her Motion before Defendant's deadline to respond, Defendant served Plaintiff with its “First Amended Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatory Questions” (ECF No. 40-4) and “Third Supplemental And First Amended Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production” (ECF No. 40-5) on February 23, 2024. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's second letter “does not mention any of the issues addressed in her initial discovery letter” and Plaintiff “never issued any further discovery conferral letters that relate to Defendant's supplemental/amended discovery responses, [so] Defendant was under the impression that the contested issues raised in Plaintiff's discovery letters were resolved.” Resp. at 3. The Court agrees that Plaintiff's Motion was prematurely filed. The fact that Defendant's responses set forth amended answers and specific arguments for their objections, none of which were referenced in Plaintiff's Motion, suggests to this Court that a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes without court action had not been undertaken by the Plaintiff before the filing of Plaintiff's Motion. Several courts have denied motions to compel when the parties failed to first confer in an effort to narrow the issues. See Ocanas v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 7-14-CV-350, 2015 WL 12777220 at *8 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (stating “the Court will not expend its own time and resources evaluating every response and determining what argument Plaintiffs should have made when Plaintiffs did not take the time to fully evaluate the objections themselves”); Anzures v. Prologis Texas I LLC, 300 F.R.D. 314, 316 (W.D. Tex. 2012) (explaining that “[t]he Court expects each item to have been discussed in good faith in an effort to resolve it as required by Rule 37,” and noting that “it seems logical that the parties will have spent an equal or greater amount of time [than they expect the court to expend] attempting to resolve the issue”). The Defendant provided the Court with its responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. See Resp., Ex. D, ECF No. 40-4; Resp., Ex. E, ECF No. 40-5. While the Defendant made a number of objections it also provided answers with specific Bates number ranges for the responsive documents. From the parties' filings the Court cannot discern what precise documents the Defendant provided or what precise documents Plaintiff thinks she is missing. “[T]he onus is on Plaintiff in this case to detail why Defendant's responses are deficient and to direct the Court's attention to the discovery requests at issue.” Ocanas, 2015 WL 12777220 at *8. *3 This ruling should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the motion to compel. Nevertheless, after considering the parties' written filings at this time, the Court concludes Plaintiff's Motion was filed prematurely. The Court encourages the parties to resolve these issues in a comprehensive and earnest manner, and that Court intervention not be requested until they have done so, and only then, if completely necessary. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's “Motion to Compel Defendant's Discovery Responses and Production” (ECF No. 38) is DENIED without prejudice.