Correspondence from Aaron Brown to Jack Greenberg

    / / / ? M

A au on  C. r*uowN, J r .
V s 'i iK D  S r . \ r i : s  M a o i s t h a t k

U NITED  STATES DISTRICT CO UR T
■\Vestp;hn D ist h ic t  o f  T e x n e ss e k  

7’  • '^ n I ' (•
M e m p h is , TENNESstr. 3 8 1 0 3

19 January 1976

Messrs. Jack Greenberg, 
Charles Stephen Ralston, 
Drew S. Days, III 
Attorneys At Law 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Messrs. Walter Lee Bailey, Jr 
D'Army Bailey 
Attorneys At Lav,'
Suite 901 Tenoke Building 
161 Jefferson Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Gentlemen:

Re: Cleamtee Garner v. Mem.phis Police Department,
No. C-75-145

I have received your motion to compel production of docu­
ments and your motion for an order compelling answers to 
interrogatories, both filed January 19, 1976. I do not, however, 
find a certificate pursuant to our Local Rule 10(c), which pro­
vides that no such motions will be heard unless a certificate of 
consultation is filed.

On your compliance with Local Rule 10(c) I will hold a 
hearing on your motions and submit a recommendation to Judge 
Wellford, unless your consultation resolves the difficulties.

Very tn x i ly yours.

Aaron Brown, Jr.
United States Magistrat

ABjr/ol 
copy to: Judge Harry W. Well'ford 

Henry L. Klein, Esq.
Art Shea, Esq.



10

couraged to have informal discovery conferences to reduce, 
in every wmy possible, the necessity of invoking formal 
deposition and discovery procedures.

(b; Prohibition on Filing of Unnecessary Deposi­
tion c. Discovery Motions or Objecti ju s .

Th( filing in Court of unnecessary deposition or dis­
covery motions, applications, requests ur objections will 
subjeci the offender to appropriate remedies, including the 
imposiiion of costs and counsel fees.

j  ^ (c! Hearing of Deposition and Du.covery Motions,
etc.

No motion in connection with dennsirions oi’ discovery 
puvsu; it to Rules 26 through 37, Fede "d Rules of Civil 
Procea ire, and no objections to interrogatories or to re­
quests 'or admissions, production or entry pursuant to said 
Rules vdll be heal'd unless counsel for a party to the con- 
trover y serves on opposing counsel and files a certificate 
(with one copy) affirming that, after consultation be­
tween die parties to the controversy, tliey are unable to 
reach n accord as to all issues. I f counsol are residents of 
the sa. le county, the consultation must be by face-to-face 
confer nee; and if counsel are residents of different 
countii 3, the consultation may be by telephone. The certifi­
cate mast also contain the names of counsel participating 
and dates and manner of consultation. The burden will be 
on cor isel filing the motion or objections to initiate the 
confei r oe. If counsel refuses to cooperate in having such 
a con 
counsi
to con or, striking the motion or objccti( ns of counsel, and 
awiu r>nd costs. No c( ntinuance v.'ib be
grand 1 because of a. failure to complete cicpu.'.UiO.'.a or ui; - 
covem, if counsel liavc not availed thenisclvcs of the pro- 
ceduri i and remedies contained in this rule.

:i;cv die t’ourt will, on application of opposing 
iiioi'd appropriate relief, such as ordering counsel