Williams v. Ward County et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Julian Pierce Williams, 	)
) 	ORDER
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	)
) 	Case No. 1:25-cv-058
Paul Olthoff, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
Before the court is a motion to compel answers to interrogatories filed by Plaintiff,
who is proceeding pro se, on February 10, 2026. (Doc. No. 72). For the reasons that follow,
the motion is denied without prejudice.
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the party moving for an order
compelling disclosure or discovery to certify that he “has in good faith conferred or attempted to
confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(1). Local Rule 37.1 similarly requires that the parties make a sincere, good faith effort to
resolve discovery issues before involving the court. D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 37.1
On September 24, 2025, the court issued an order requiring the parties to take the following
steps before 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
1
Case 1:25-cv-00058-DLH-CRH Document 73 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

position statements prior to the telephonic conference.
(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. 43).
Plaintiff asserts in his motion that Defendants have yet to respond to interrogatories that he
serve upon them on or about December 29, 2025. However, he has not specified, identified, or
attached the particular interrogatories at issue, leaving the court to guess at their form and
substance. Further, he does not certify that he has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer
with Defendants about his interrogatories. Finally, he has not requested a telephone conference with
the court to discuss Defendant’s answers or lack thereof to his interrogatories. Thus, it is clear that
he did not comply with the court’s September 24, 2025, order or the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37.1 prior to filing his motion to compel.
Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse this noncompliance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Local Rules, or the court’s order. See Aery v. Nohre, No. 22-CV-491 (PJS/TNL),
2022 WL 4136620, at *5 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 2022) (denying a pro se plaintiff’s motion to compel
without prejudice on account of his failure to comply with the applicable rules of procedure); see,
e.g., Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Even pro se litigants must comply with
court rules and directives.”); Bennett v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir.
2
Case 1:25-cv-00058-DLH-CRH Document 73 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

2002) (pro se status does not entitle litigant to disregard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or court's
local rules); Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984) (“[P]ro se litigants are not excused
from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.”). Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc.
No. 72) is therefore procedurally improper and DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3
Case 1:25-cv-00058-DLH-CRH Document 73 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3