Postelmans v. Williston, City of et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Renate E. Postelmans, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Detective Dustin Celandar of the Williston 	) 	Case No. 1:18-cv-214
Police Department, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
On January 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Discovery Conference and/or Motion for
Leave under Civ. L.R. 37.1.” (Doc. No. ). Advising the court of a dispute regarding her Request for
Production No. 15, she requests that the court schedule a status conference to discuss it or,
alternatively, permit her to file a motion to compel.
On January 2, 2026, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Compel. (Doc. No. 58). Therein she
requests that the court issue an order compelling Defendant’s to produce documents response to her
Request for Production No. 15.
The court previously informed the parties that the following stems were to be undertaken
prior to filing any discovery motions:
(1) 	The parties are required to confer and fully comply with Rule 37(a)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37.1 by undertaking a
sincere, good faith effort to resolve all differences without court action or
intervention.
(2) 	In the event that all parties have made reasonable, good faith efforts to confer
and attempt to resolve any differences, without success, the parties are then
required to schedule a telephonic conference with the magistrate judge in an
effort to try to resolve the discovery dispute prior to filing any discovery
motions. The magistrate judge may require the parties to submit brief
position statements prior to the telephonic conference.
1
Case 1:18-cv-00214-DLH-CRH Document 59 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 2

(3) 	If the discovery dispute is not resolved during the telephonic conference with
the magistrate judge, the magistrate judge may permit filing of discovery
motions. In connection with the filing of any such motions, the moving party
must fully comply with all requirements of Rule 37(a)(1) and Local Rule
37.1 and must submit the certifications required by those rules.
(4) 	The court will not hear any discovery motion unless the parties have made
a 	sincere, 	good 	faith 	effort 	to 	resolve 	the 	dispute 	and 	all 	of 	the
above-described steps have been strictly followed. A failure to fully comply
with all of the prerequisite steps may result in a denial of any motion with
prejudice and may result in an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
(Doc. No. 22).
The court is not inclined to deviate from established procedure and permit Plaintiff to file
a motion to compel without first participating in a status conference. Plaintiff’s motion for leave
to file a motion to compel (Doc. No. 57) is therefore DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc.
No. 58) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Request for Discovery Conference (Doc. No. 57)
is GRANTED. The court shall schedule a telephonic status conference with the parties on January
16, 2026, at 9:30 AM to discuss the matter in dispute. To participate in the status conference, the
parties should call (571) 353-2301 and enter 292466149 followed by # when prompted for the "Call
ID."
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 5th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:18-cv-00214-DLH-CRH Document 59 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 2