Failure to “Meet and Confer” is Reason to Deny Attorney’s Fees

This is my second post on Sadeghpour v. Nakamoto, 2026 WL 2267345 (E.D. La. Aug. 6, 2026).

Plaintiff in a copyright infringement action moved to compel discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. The court wrote that: Under Rule 37(a)(1), 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.’”

The purpose of the requirement is clear:

Rule 37’s conference requirements encourage resolving discovery disputes without judicial involvement. Failure to confer or attempt to confer may result in unnecessary motions. When the court must resolve a dispute that the parties themselves could have resolved, it must needlessly expend resources that it could better utilize elsewhere. The conference requirements are no “empty formality.”

Id. at *10 (cleaned up).

Frequently, the failure of a movant to “meet and confer” results in a denial without prejudice of the discovery motion.

In Sadeghpour, however, it resulted in the denial of attorneys fees.  Plaintiff’s motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part. The court wrote:

The failure to engage in a proper meet and confer before filing a motion to compel constitutes sufficient reason in itself to deny a Rule 37 motion and/or any fees and costs associated with same.

Given the apparent failure to engage in a fulsome meet and confer, the undersigned finds that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Id. at * 10 (emphasis added).