to confer in the period reasonably prior to filing the motion. It is a waste of this Court’s time and resources to adjudicate a dispute that could have been resolved by the parties themselves. See, e.g., Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Servs., Inc., 168 F.R.D. 295, 302 (D.Kan.1996). Defendants present this Court with no persuasive reason that compliance with the rules should be excused in this case. While this Court declines to set forth any bright-line rule as to how much time may elapse between conferring and filing the motion, it is clear to this Court that the extensive length of time that elapsed in this case does not show a good faith attempt to confer. See, e.g., Ridge Chrysler Jeep L.L.C. v. Daimler Chrysler Servs. North Am., L.L. C., 2004 WL 3021842, at *4 (N.D.Ill.2004) (<HOLDING>). Defendants the Atlanta Physicians’ motion
holding that one letter sent a year prior to the filing of a motion to compel was insufficient to satisfy the requirement to confer holding that filing of an administrative complaint did not meet the requirement that the employee seek counseling prior to filing holding that a letter to an opposing party was a paper for purposes of frcp rule 11 where the attorney writing the letter sent a copy to the presiding judge in the case holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient holding that rule 11 applied to a letter sent with the intent to influence the court with respect to injunctive relief