United States District Court, D. Nevada
FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel (ECF No. 134), filed on January 13, 2017. Defendants
filed their Response (ECF No. 135) on January 27, 2017.
Plaintiff filed his Reply (ECF No. 136) on February 3, 2017.
Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Motion to
Compel (ECF No. 145), filed on April 18, 2017. Defendants
filed their Response (ECF No. 147) on May 2, 2017. Plaintiff
filed his Reply (ECF No. 148) on May 8, 2017.
requests an order compelling Defendants to respond to
Plaintiff's first set of written discovery including
interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for
admission. Plaintiff's written discovery requests were
served separately upon multiple Defendants and span a litany
of topics including personnel records, disciplinary records,
communications among Defendants, records of discriminatory
complaints, and employment contracts. Plaintiff argues that
Defendants' objections under the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), Title II of the
Nevada System of Higher Education, and Nev. Admin. Code
§ 248.718 do not protect them from responding to his
written discovery requests. Defendants argue that
Plaintiff's motion fails to comply with LR 26-7(b) and
(c) because Plaintiff did not set forth the complete test of
the discovery originally sought and did not adequately meet
and confer prior to filing the motion. Defendants further
argue that Plaintiff's discovery requests regarding
sexual history or use of alcohol are not relevant.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to
move for an order compelling discovery and requires
certification that the movant has “in good faith
conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party
failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the
information or material without court action.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2)(B). There are two components to the
meet and confer requirement of Rule 37 that must be met.
Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170
F.R.D. 166, 170 (D. Nev. 1996). First, the moving party must
provide a certification that “accurately and
specifically conveys to the court who, where, how, and when
the respective parties attempted to personally resolve the
discovery dispute.” Id. This is generally
accomplished by the attachment of an affidavit certifying
such. Taylor v. Aria Resort & Casino, LLC, No.
2:11-CV-01360-KJD, 2013 WL 2355462, at *3 (D. Nev. May 29,
2013). Second, the moving party must actually confer or
attempt to confer in good faith. Shuffle Master, 170
F.R.D. at 170. A good faith attempt requires more than the
“perfunctory parroting of statutory language, ”
it requires a “genuine attempt to resolve the discovery
dispute through non judicial means.” Id. at
171. LR 26-7(c) also requires good-faith meet and confer
efforts and a declaration setting forth the details of such
declaration, Plaintiff was required to set forth essential
facts to enable the court to pass a preliminary judgment on
the adequacy and sincerity of the good faith conferment
between the parties. Plaintiff provided only a cursory review
of the meet and confer efforts between the parties in his
motion. Although it appears the parties have made two
attempts to resolve this dispute, there is disagreement
regarding the breakdown of communication between the parties
and the extent of the topics discussed. Defendants represent
that the parties did not meet and confer on all of the topics
that are in dispute. Based upon the emails attached to each
parties' briefs and considering the extent of the
requests, it is unlikely that the parties were able to
meaningfully discuss each discovery dispute. Therefore,
Plaintiff fails to provide adequate certification regarding
the parties' meet and confer efforts and the Court does
not have sufficient information to determine the adequacy of
the meet and confer attempts.
26-7(b) requires the moving party “to set forth in full
the text of the discovery originally sought and any response
to it.” The burden is on Plaintiff to demonstrate that
he is entitled to relief. Agarwal v. Oregon Mut. Ins.
Co., No. 2:11-CV-01384-LDG, 2013 WL 211093, at *3 (D.
Nev. Jan. 18, 2013). Generally, it is insufficient to merely
attach voluminous discovery requests and responses as
exhibits to satisfy the requirements of LR 26-7(b).
Taylor, 2013 WL 2355462 at *4. This essentially
shifts the burden to the Court to sift through and root for
issues that should be clear on the face of a discovery
Plaintiff has simply attached more than 300 pages of
propounded discovery and responses as exhibits. Although
Plaintiff broadly discusses the categories of the information
sought, he fails to adequately link his arguments to specific
discovery requests. This is not sufficient to allow the Court
to evaluate whether the information sought is relevant and
discoverable and whether the responses are sufficient or
require supplementation. The Court, therefore, denies
Plaintiffs motions for failure to comply with LR 26-7(b),
(c), and Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.