United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (DOCKET NO. 34)
J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel
or, alternatively, to extend the discovery cutoff. Docket No.
34. Defendant SFR filed a response in opposition. Docket No.
36. No reply was filed and the deadline has now expired.
See Local Rule 7-2(b). The Court find the motion
properly decided without a hearing. See Local Rule
78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to compel
discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny
discovery.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,
751 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Crawford-El v.
Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998). When a party fails to
provided requested discovery, the requesting party may move
to compel that discovery. See, e.g., Nationstar Mtg., LLC
v. Flamingo Trails No. 7 Landscape Maintenance Assoc.,
316 F.R.D. 327, 331 (D. Nev. 2016). The party opposing
discovery bears the burden of explaining why discovery should
be denied. See, e.g., Carr v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 312 F.R.D. 459, 465-69 (N.D. Tex. 2015)
(addressing burdens following 2015 amendments to the
pending motion raises a straight-forward dispute. The parties
agreed in their proposed discovery plan to give one another
30-days' notice for depositions, and the Court entered an
order accordingly. See Docket No. 28 at 5. Plaintiff
provided notice of its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on November
2, 2017. See Docket No. 34-1 at 10. The deposition
was noticed for November 30, 2017, which provided only
28-days' notice. See Id. at 6. The notice of
deposition was served 32 days before the discovery cutoff of
December 4, 2017. See Docket No. 28 at 3.
gist of SFR's position is that the deposition notice was
void for failing to provide 30 days of notice and, because
less than 30 days were left in the discovery period once the
meet-and-confer process began, a new notice could not be
served. See, e.g., Docket No. 36 at
Consequently, SFR contends that it has no obligation to
provide any Rule 30(b)(6) deponent in this case. See
Id. The Court is not persuaded.
is an overarching preference for cases to be decided on their
merits, see, e.g., Silvagni v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 320 F.R.D. 237, 243 (D. Nev. 2017), and courts
eschew reliance on overly-technical objections to avoid
discovery obligations, see, e.g., Aevoe Corp. v.
AE Tech Co., 2013 WL 4701192, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 30,
2013) (collecting cases that courts may require compliance
with discovery requests even if the default response deadline
is a few days after the discovery cutoff). Moreover, as the
Court has already reminded counsel elsewhere, common sense
and practicality should be at the forefront of their
meet-and-confer discussions. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v.
Paradise Court Homeowners Ass'n, 2016 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 103384, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 5, 2016); see also
Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242,
1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (“The discovery process is subject
to the overriding limitation of good faith”). In this
case, the parties agreed to provide 30 days of notice for
depositions, and the deposition notice in dispute was
provided 32 days before the close of discovery.If SFR believed
that it was entitled to an additional two-days' notice
for that deposition, the most obvious solution was for the
parties to agree upon a new deposition date within the
discovery period that would alleviate any of SFR's
scheduling concerns. Had the parties agreed to continue the
deposition to December 4, 2017, for example, that would have
effectively provided SFR 32-days' notice from its receipt
of the initial notice of deposition. Similarly, if no date
within the discovery period was available, the parties could
have stipulated to a short extension to the discovery cutoff
to accommodate both Plaintiff's need for the deposition
and SFR's scheduling concerns. Nonetheless, the record
shows that SFR refused to provide any alternative date for
the deposition, Docket No. 34-1 at 3, and instead proclaimed
that it would not appear for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition,
id. at 14. SFR has not persuaded the Court that it
should be permitted to avoid altogether its Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition based on the circumstances presented here.
short, this case involves the setting of deposition that
shorted SFR's notice by a de minimis two days,
providing 28 days rather than 30 days of notice, but was
delivered 32 days before the close of discovery. This is a
situation that should have been resolved through practical
cooperation during the meet-and-confer process. At best, SFR
has shown that the deposition should have been continued by a
few days. It has not shown that it should be permitted to
avoid the deposition all together.
the motion to compel is GRANTED. The Court
hereby SETS the deposition at issue for
January 5, 2018, at 1:00 p.m., unless the parties stipulate
to a different date and/or time. While the Court is
permitting Plaintiff an opportunity to take this deposition,
the discovery period otherwise remains closed. The Court
EXTENDS the deadline for dispositive motions
to January 19, 2018, and the deadline to file a joint
proposed pretrial order to February 20, 2018.