United States District Court, D. Nevada
BARBARA J. REGA, Plaintiff(s),
VANGUARD INTEGRITY PROFESSIONALS, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER (DOCKET NO. 32)
J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to compel. Docket
No. 32. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the
motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice.
is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the
Court.” F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196,
203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). Counsel should strive to be
cooperative, practical and sensible, and should seek judicial
intervention “only in extraordinary situations that
implicate truly significant interests.” In re
Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331
(N.D. Cal. 1985). A threshold issue in the review of any
motion to compel is whether the movant made adequate efforts
to resolve the dispute without court intervention.
Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141 F.Supp.3d
1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(a)(1) requires that the party bringing a motion to compel
discovery must “include a certification that the movant
has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the
person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an
effort to obtain it without court action.” The Local
Rules further expound on this requirement, providing that
discovery motions will not be considered “unless the
movant (1) has made a good faith effort to meet and confer .
. . before filing the motion, and (2) includes a declaration
setting forth the details and results of the meet-and-confer
conference about each disputed discovery request.”
Local Rule 26-7(c).
in this District have held that “personal
consultation” means the movant must “personally
engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party
to meaningfully discuss each contested discovery dispute in a
genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.”
ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170
F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996). The consultation obligation
“promote[s] a frank exchange between counsel to resolve
issues by agreement or to at least narrow and focus matters
in controversy before judicial resolution is sought.”
Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120
(D.Nev.1993). To meet this obligation, parties must
“treat the informal negotiation process as a substitute
for, and not simply a formalistic prerequisite to, judicial
resolution of discovery disputes.” Id. This is
done when the parties “present to each other the merits
of their respective positions with the same candor,
specificity, and support during the informal negotiations as
during the briefing of discovery motions.” Id.
To ensure that parties comply with these requirements,
movants must file certifications that “accurately and
specifically convey to the court who, where, how, and when
the respective parties attempted to personally resolve the
discovery dispute.” ShuffleMaster, 170 F.R.D.
at 170. Courts may look beyond the certification
made to determine whether a sufficient meet-and-confer
actually took place. See, e.g., Cardoza,
141 F.Supp.3d at 1145.
motion to compel indicates that she emailed Defendant's
counsel on June 23, 2017, requesting supplemental
disclosures. Docket No. 32 at 2. Plaintiff has not identified
any “personal consultation, ” however, and the
mere sending of an email is not sufficient to satisfy the
meet-and-confer requirements for filing a discovery motion.
See, e.g., Local Rule IA 1-3(f) (“The exchange
of written, electronic, or voice-mail communications does not
satisfy this requirement”).
the motion to compel is DENIED without
 These requirements are now largely
codified in the Court's local rules that became effective
in 2016. See Local Rule 26-7(c), Local Rule IA
 The reply indicates that Plaintiff
left a voice-mail for Defendants' counsel prior
to receiving the initial disclosures. Docket No. 36 at 2.
That voice-mail does constitute a sufficient meet-and-confer
because it was left prior to receipt of the discovery at
issue and, at any rate, exchanging voice-mails does not
constitute personal consultation. See Local Rule IA
 In reply, Plaintiff argues that she is
not seeking to compel discovery and is instead seeking
sanctions, a motion to which the meet-and-confer requirements
do not attach. Docket No. 36 at 3. Plaintiffs contention that
she is not seeking to compel discovery is plainly
inconsistent with her motion. See, e.g., Docket No.
32 at 1 (captioned title of document as
“PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING
DISCLOSURE AND SANCTIONS . . .”); id. at 3
(“Plaintiff requests the Court grant her Motion to
Compel and for Sanctions”).
Moreover, parties may not seek separate forms of
relief in a single motion. Local Rule IC 2-2(b) (“For
each type of relief requested or purpose of the document, a
separate document must be filed”). Because the pending
motion improperly combines a motion to compel and a motion
for sanctions, the Court declines to opine on the ...