Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiff Luis Guillermo Castillo-Rubio, an incarcerated pro se litigant, sued defendant Russell Aboud for breach of contract, legal malpractice, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment arising from Aboud’s representation of Castillo-Rubio in a federal criminal case. Aboud failed to respond to initial discovery requests, prompting Castillo-Rubio to file a motion to compel in January 2026, which the district court granted.
Despite the court’s order, Aboud did not serve responses to requests for production or produce responsive materials. Although Aboud eventually provided responses to interrogatories and requests for admission, those responses were incomplete. On May 4, 2026, Castillo-Rubio filed a second motion to compel. His certification of good faith conferral consisted solely of a February 2026 letter to Aboud listing deficiencies and demanding a response within ten days, without attaching the disputed responses or certifying any actual discussion with opposing counsel.
In his response, Aboud claimed he had “properly answered and objected” to the requests but provided neither copies of his responses nor articulate objections. Aboud also filed a countermotton demanding that Castillo-Rubio answer discovery, though he acknowledged that Castillo-Rubio had already served responses to interrogatories and objected to production requests.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castañeda denied Castillo-Rubio’s motion to compel. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), a motion to compel must include certification that the movant has in good faith “conferred or attempted to confer” with the opposing party. The court held that “confer” requires two-way communication involving deliberation and comparison of views, not unilateral correspondence. A single letter listing deficiencies and imposing an arbitrary deadline—without inviting discussion or dialogue—does not satisfy this requirement. The court cited binding precedent establishing that a letter “unilaterally identifying flaws” and “setting an arbitrary response deadline” is inadequate because it lacks the reciprocal engagement required by the rule.
The court also denied Aboud’s request that Castillo-Rubio answer discovery because Aboud failed to file any certification of conferral and made no attempt to satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement. Rather than allow either party to proceed to court intervention, the magistrate judge imposed affirmative obligations: the parties must confer in good faith by May 27, 2026, and file a joint statement detailing their efforts to resolve disputes and any remaining disagreements. The court acknowledged the practical difficulties posed by Castillo-Rubio’s incarcerated status and permitted conferral via telephone, videoconference, or written communication. The parties must certify their conferral efforts, attach all discovery requests and responses, and use a detailed discovery dispute template provided by the court for any unresolved matters.
Key Takeaways
- A unilateral letter setting a deadline does not satisfy Rule 37(a)(1)’s good faith conferral requirement; parties must engage in actual two-way dialogue to discuss and negotiate discovery disputes.
- Pro se litigants, despite liberal construction of their filings, remain subject to procedural rules and cannot bypass the conferral requirement simply because they represent themselves.
- Courts will reject motions to compel that lack adequate certification of conferral and may require parties to demonstrate good faith efforts before entertaining further motion practice.
- When parties fail to confer adequately, courts may impose structured processes—such as mandatory joint statements using detailed templates—to facilitate resolution before judicial intervention.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces a critical procedural gatekeeping function: parties cannot simply demand court intervention in discovery disputes without first making genuine efforts to resolve matters bilaterally. The decision is significant for litigators because it establishes that what parties *say* they did (a letter) matters far less than whether they actually engaged opposing counsel in meaningful dialogue. Courts in the Fifth Circuit have grown increasingly strict about policing the meet-and-confer requirement, viewing perfunctory letters and unilateral demands as abuses of the motion process that waste judicial resources.
The opinion also demonstrates that courts will accommodate procedural compliance where feasible—here, by allowing an incarcerated plaintiff alternative means of conferral—while still enforcing the substantive requirement for good faith engagement. For defense counsel, the decision underscores the importance of not only responding to discovery disputes but doing so substantively and promptly, and participating in genuine dialogue rather than ignoring opposing counsel’s attempts to resolve matters short of motion practice.