United States District Court, D. Nevada
CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.
This matter involves pro se Plaintiff Gordon Eruchalu's wrongful foreclosure action against First Option Mortgage and U.S. Bank, among others. ( See Second Amend. Compl. #104). Before the court is First Option's Motion to Compel (#155). Eruchalu filed an opposition (#163); and First Option replied (#164). Also before the court is Eruchalu's Motion to Compel (#157). Defendant U.S. Bank filed an opposition (#165); and Eruchalu replied (#172). Also before the court is Eruchalu's Motion to Extend (#158). First Option filed an opposition (#162); and Eruchalu replied (#167). For the reasons stated below, the parties' motions are denied.
I. First Option's Motion to Compel is Denied with Prejudice
First Option moves to compel discovery responses to thirty interrogatories and thirty-one requests for production of documents. ( See Def.'s Mot. to Compel (#155) at 4-33). In compliance with Local Rule 26-7(a), First Option's motion "set forth in full the text of the discovery originally sought and the response thereto." The motion contains nothing else.
A request for a court order must "state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order." FED. R. CIV. P. 7(b)(1)(B). Local Rule 7-2(d) complements Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7. It states that "[t]he failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion shall constitute a consent to the denial of the motion."
In the context of a motion to compel, the party resisting discovery carries the heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). This, however, does not abrogate the moving party's burden of filing points and authorities in support of a motion. See, e.g., FED. R. CIV. P. 7(b)(1)(B). The question presented by a motion to compel is normally simple: does the discovery request "appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). At a minimum, this requires the moving party to show that the discovery request seeks a "nonprivileged [information] that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Id.
Here, First Option failed to make this minimum showing. It merely restyled its discovery requests as a motion to compel and then filed the discovery requests with the court. It is not the court's job to laboriously search the operative complaint, which is 153 pages, or First Option's answer for claims and defenses that could be used to support First Option's motion to compel. Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Baltes, 15 F.3d 660, 662 (7th Cir. 1994) ("District judges are not archaeologists. They need not excavate masses of papers in search of revealing tidbits.").
Local Rule 26-7(a), which requires the moving party to "set forth in full the text of the discovery originally sought, " exists so that the court may determine whether the parties' legal arguments regarding a discovery dispute have a factual basis. The rule does not obviate the need to make legal arguments as required by Rule 26(b)(1). See FED. R. CIV. P. 7(b)(1)(B). Therefore, First Option's Motion to Compel (#155) is denied with prejudice. ( See Min. Proceedings #153) (ordering that "[a]ny motion to compel regarding discovery to this date must be filed by August 15, 2014.").
II. Eruchalu's Motion to Compel is Denied
Eruchalu moves to compel U.S. Bank to respond to his requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. (Pl.'s Mot. to Compel #157). Because Eurchalu's motion complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 7-2(d), the court begins its analysis of the parties' filings and arguments by reviewing the govern law.
A. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides for liberal discovery. Seattle Times, Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 34 (1984). It states, "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26 defines relevant information as any information that "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.
Where-as here-a party resists discovery, the requesting party may file a motion to compel discovery. The party resisting discovery carries the heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). The objecting party must show that the discovery request is overly broad, unduly burdensome irrelevant. Teller v. Dogge, No. 2:12-cv-00591-JCM, 2013 WL 1501445 (D. Nev. Apr. 10, 2013) (Magistrate Judge Foley) (citing Graham v. Casey's General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 253-4 (S.D. Ind. 2000).
To meet this burden, the objecting party must specifically detail the reasons why each request is improper. Walker v. Lakewood Condo. Owners Ass'n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 587 (C.D. Cal. 1999). Boilerplate, generalized objections are inadequate and tantamount to making no objection at all. Id. (citing Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986) (objecting party must show a particularized harm is likely to occur if the requesting ...