Email Exchanges Between Counsel Did Not Satisfy "Meet and Confer" Requirement in Case Management Order
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 2006 WL 335846 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)
In this patent infringement case, the court had issued a Case Management Order that set scheduling deadlines and required the parties to confer and cooperate on certain tasks necessary to the orderly conduct of the litigation. Discovery became very contentious, and the court issued an order to show cause requesting the parties to explain why the parties and/or their counsel should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with the Case Management Order. Although the court decided it could not hold either party in contempt, it advised that the parties' exchange of emails and written correspondence did not satisfy the CMO's meet and confer requirement: "The Court's understanding of the phrase "meet and confer" is a conference in which opposing parties actually talk to one another."