Meet And Confer Meaning
Meet and confer means communicating in good faith to discuss and try to resolve the issues a rule or court order requires the parties to address. In civil litigation, it often concerns a discovery disagreement before someone asks the court to intervene.
The obligation is to make the required genuine effort, not necessarily to agree. A demand letter, an early planning conference and a motion's certification are different things. The practical question is which requirement applies now, what dialogue it requires and how the effort will be documented.
Resolving a discovery dispute does not require settlement of the entire case. Nor is conferral automatically mediation: the federal discovery rules do not generally require a neutral mediator for the parties' discussion.
Separate planning, dispute resolution and certification
The current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain several distinct conference requirements.
Process | Purpose and required work |
|---|---|
Rule 26(f) conference | Early case and discovery planning. Parties discuss claims and defenses, possible resolution, disclosures, preservation and a proposed discovery plan. |
Discovery-dispute conferral | Discussion directed to particular requests, responses, objections or proposed protection. The aim is to resolve or narrow the disagreement before court action. |
Rule 37(a)(1) certification | A statement included with a motion to compel confirming good-faith conferral or attempted conferral to obtain the discovery without court action. It records the effort; it is not the discussion itself. |
Completing the early Rule 26(f) conference does not establish that the parties later addressed a newly arising discovery dispute. Likewise, adding a sentence to a motion does not substitute for an effort that never happened.
Rule 26(c)(1) also requires a good-faith conference or attempted conference certification for a protective-order motion. Conferral is therefore relevant to a person seeking protection from discovery as well as someone seeking to compel it.
Rule 26(d) generally restricts discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference, but includes exceptions and authorized alternatives. Do not turn the planning conference into a universal rule that no discovery-related step can ever occur beforehand.
Good faith means engaging with the actual disagreement
A useful discussion identifies the request, the response or objection, each side's reasoning and the proposed solution. It can narrow dates, custodians, document categories, production format or another disputed term. Good faith does not require abandoning a supported objection or conceding the merits of the lawsuit.
A stronger record: In a hypothetical document dispute, the requesting party identifies the particular request and explains why the records matter. The responding party explains the search burden. They discuss a narrower date range and an initial search of identified custodians, agree on some production and identify the remaining disagreement. That illustrates substantive engagement; it does not guarantee a court will find every procedural requirement satisfied.
A weaker record: A party sends “withdraw all objections by tomorrow or we will move,” ignores a proposed call and files a certification saying only “we met and conferred.” The record does not explain discussion of the actual requests, responses or possible narrowing. Sending a message is not the same as the direct dialogue some courts expressly require.
Issue: Must the responding party search a specified additional group of custodians for a particular date range? Defining that question makes both the discussion and any remaining request for court action more precise.
Counsel and self-represented parties should check the applicable communication method, motion-specific rules and the assigned judge's orders. There is no universal number of emails, calls or minutes that proves good faith in every case.
Local and state rules can require more than an email
The Northern District of California's Civil Local Rules, effective October 2, 2026, define conferral in Rule 1-5(n) through direct dialogue and discussion. Subject to the rules and the judge's orders, telephone discussion is permitted; merely sending written, electronic or voicemail communications does not satisfy the requirement.
Civil Local Rule 37-1(a) says the court will not entertain a discovery-dispute request or motion unless counsel previously conferred to try to resolve all disputed issues. It also permits sanctions for an opposing lawyer's refusal or failure to confer. Those are that court's requirements, not a nationwide rule that every email exchange is sufficient or insufficient in every setting.
State law must be checked separately. Current California Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, amended effective January 1, 2026, has two relevant parts. Subdivision (a) requires the declaration to state facts showing a reasonable, good-faith attempt, in person, by telephone or by videoconference, to resolve each issue presented by the motion.
Subdivision (b) additionally requires the declaration to say whether the moving party conferred, including through electronic communication, about retaining a certified shorthand reporter for the hearing. Permission to discuss reporter retention electronically is not permission to replace subdivision (a)'s dispute-resolution dialogue with email alone.
California section 2023.010(i) identifies failure to confer or attempt to confer in the specified ways as discovery misuse when the applicable motion provision requires an informal-resolution declaration. The governing jurisdiction, particular motion and current text matter; an older letter-only explanation may omit requirements now in effect.
Keep a factual record of the effort
Use this practical checklist, adjusted to the court's requirements:
- Identify the disputed material. Record the requests, responses, objections and specific relief under discussion.
- Record the actual contact. Note dates, participants, method, proposed meeting times and any unsuccessful attempts. Distinguish a completed conversation from an unanswered invitation.
- Summarize the positions and proposals. Explain what each side sought, what narrowing was considered and which points were resolved.
- Identify what remains. Keep the court request focused on unresolved matters rather than including disputes the parties already settled.
- Prepare the required certification or declaration truthfully. Describe what occurred and meet any local requirements for supporting facts, joint submissions or other documentation.
These are record-building suggestions, not a universal certification form. The Northern District's Rule 37-4, for example, requires competent declarations detailing efforts to obtain compliance when seeking discovery sanctions, together with specified support for requested expenses. A bare statement of “good faith” may not supply the factual support a particular procedure requires.
Confirm agreements in writing when appropriate. A stipulation about discovery may still need court approval: federal Rule 29 requires approval for a stipulated discovery extension that interferes with court-set completion, motion-hearing or trial dates. Negotiating does not itself change those dates.
Decide whether to continue, seek a conference or move
Continue or narrow the discussion when concrete proposals remain unanswered or a material new objection has not been addressed. Avoid filing over an issue that meaningful dialogue may resolve, while tracking the actual deadline.
Use the court's prescribed conference procedure if the local rules or judge's orders provide one. For example, Northern District Civil Local Rule 37-1(b) addresses a request for available judicial assistance during a discovery event after unsuccessful good-faith negotiations and under the conditions it specifies. It is not general permission to contact a judge about any dispute in any manner.
Prepare a motion only after checking the prerequisites when a dispute remains. Federal Rule 37(a)(1) recognizes attempted conferral, so an opponent's refusal does not necessarily give that person a veto. Preserve the actual attempts and follow local or judicial procedures rather than privately declaring the requirement futile.
The consequences can include refusal to entertain a request, additional proceedings and expense shifting. Rule 37(a)(5) addresses expenses when a motion is granted, denied or partly granted, with an opportunity to be heard and important exceptions. In particular, a movant who filed before attempting good-faith resolution cannot obtain the expense award described in Rule 37(a)(5)(A). Winning part of the discovery dispute does not excuse skipping the required effort.
Meet and confer is therefore a procedural step with an evidentiary record: identify the applicable requirement, engage with the disputed issues and accurately document the result. This entry provides general legal information, not advice about filing a motion or responding to a particular discovery dispute.