Compass Bank v. Shamgochian, 287 F.R.D. 397

Compass Bank moved to compel Shamgochian's responses to interrogatories, production requests, and admissions as inadequate and nonresponsive.
Plaintiff alleges Shamgochian produced no documents despite months to supplement responses.
Defendant did not file a response to the motion to compel.
The court analyzes Rule 37(a) certification, good faith conferral, and sanctions for failure to disclose.
Court finds Plaintiff’s single letter insufficient for good faith conferral and denies the motion without prejudice.
The court orders a telephonic conferral by a deadline and reserves a hearing if issues remain unresolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Certification and conferral requirement	Compass Bank satisfied certification but failed to prove good faith conferral.	Shamgochian did not adequately respond; lack of conferral undermines motion.	Motion denied without prejudice for failure to meet conferral standard.
Sanctions and expenses	Plaintiff seeks reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees under Rule 37.	No responsive disclosure and no court-ordered production; sanctions may be warranted only if motion granted.	Expenses denied due to denial of the motion.
Remedy for noncompliance	Court should compel production and resolve discovery disputes promptly.	Not addressed in detail due to lack of response; noncompliance remains unresolved.	Court opts to try informal resolution first and schedules potential hearing.

Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2002) (Rule 37 requires proper documentation and justification for expenses; lodestar method applies to attorney’s fees)