Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00018.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-1 Filed 01/08/24 Page 17 of 42 searched all accounts that she can access. Had Plaintiff bothered to follow up on this alleged communication, Ms. Maxwell would have reaffirmed that there is no “undisclosed” email account. Instead, Plaintiff filed this frivolous and vexatious motion to waste both the Court and Ms. Maxwell’s time and needlessly multiply these proceedings. Courts in this district routinely deny motions based on failure to confer prior to the motion when such conferral is required by the Rules or Court Order. Prescient Partners, L.P. v. Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 7590 (DAB) JCF, 1998 WL 67672, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“Under ordinary circumstances,..., the failure to meet and confer mandates denial of a motion to compel.”); Excess Ins. Co. v. Rochdale Ins. Co., No. 05 CIV. 10174, 2007 WL 2900217, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2007) (Sweet, J.) (denying motion and cross motion based on failure to confer, noting “[m]ere correspondence, absent exigent circumstances not present here, does not satisfy the requirement’); Myers v. Andzel, No. 06 CIV. 14420 (RWS), 2007 WL 3256865, at *1 (Sweet, J.) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) (denying motion based on failure to confer). The Court has been abundantly clear on the necessity for conferral prior to motions practice. In the March 17, 2016 hearing, the Court ordered that prior to motions practice, the parties were to set an agenda on the disputed issue in writing and have a meeting of substance prior to filing a motion. “So I would say exchange writing as to what it's going to be and have a meeting. It doesn't have to be in person, but it certainly has to be a significant meeting; it can't be just one ten-minute telephone call. So that's how I feel about the meet and confer.” Tr. p. 3. As shown in the Plaintiff’s motion, no such call has occurred. Based on Plaintiff's failure to confer as required by both the Federal Rules and this Court’s standing order, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Motion be denied and attorneys’ fees and costs of responding be awarded to Ms. Maxwell.