Local rule 7.1.1 is probably the one I cite to the most. Every time I file a non-dispositive motion, I've got to add in a little note along the lines of "pursuant to D. Del. LR 7.1.1, counsel certifies that reasonable efforts were made to reach agreement on the subject of this motion, including a meet and confer involving Delaware counsel."
I use it so often I futzed with my autocorrect settings so Word automatically inserts it whenever I type "INSOLENT FOOLS." (I tried to pick something that I wouldn't normally type in a brief, that would also give me a bit of joy. It has made typing my many letters to the editor harder though.)
Today's case is a reminder that you really do have to get local counsel on that call, even if its a big hassle.
The parties in Anthony Turiello v. Central Sprinkler LLC, C.A. No. 25-497-GBW (D. Del.) had a discovery dispute. They raised it in the usual way before Judge Williams, filing a joint form letter requesting a teleconference on "Plaintiff’s request for Defendants to consent and/or provide a release to certain taxing authorities subpoenaed by Defendants in this case." Id. at D.I. 83.
The only thing unusual was that, rather than note the name of the Delaware counsel for defendant who was involved on the meet and confer, the letter explained that he was unavailable do to obligations in another case:
Delaware Counsel for Defendants was aware of the scheduled meet and confer and copied on all correspondence related to the meet and confer and the underlying discovery dispute issue but was unable to attend due to trial preparation obligations in Civil Act. No. 20-1589-JFB-EGT, in which trial began on February 9, 2026.
Id.
Notably, this was not a case where the defendant was alleging that the parties were not at an impasse, and Delaware counsel for both plaintiff and defendant signed the letter requesting the teleconference.
Judge Williams, however, held that this was insufficient and ordered the parties to complete the meet and confer:
WHEREAS, fact discovery in this action closes on December 18, 2026; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have not attempted to explain why they cannot wait to meet-and-confer with Defendants until after the conclusion of the trial in Astellas Pharma Inc., et al v. Sandoz Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 20-1 589-JFB-EGT;
Now, therefore, at Wilmington this 10th day of February 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' request for the Court to schedule a discovery dispute teleconference is DENIED without prejudice to renew after a verbal meet-and-confer with Delaware Counsel for both parties takes place. Any such meet-and-confer must concern the dispute set forth in the parties' request
Id., D.I. 86 (Order).
The order does suggest that there might have been a different result if there were an apparent time crunch, but we'll have to wait and see what sort of excuse might pass muster. Until then, remember to make sure you've got your friendly Delaware counsel on those calls.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
