United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (Mots. to Compel - ECF Nos. 99, 107)
A. Leen, United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the court on Defendant Amanda Vertner's
Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Interrogatories
and Request for Production of Documents (ECF No. 99) and
Plaintiff Mark Picozzi's Motion to Compel High Desert
Medical to Release Medical Records (ECF No. 107). These
Motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of
Picozzi is a pro se prisoner currently in the custody of the
Nevada Department of Corrections at the High Desert State
Prison (“HDSP”). He has received permission to
proceed in this case in forma pauperis. This case
arises from Picozzi's allegations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1983, regarding his treatment while he was
incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center. The court
screened the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14), found that
Picozzi stated plausible claims against 13 defendants:
Sergeant Judd, Officers Hightower, Daos, Goins, Hans, Brooks,
Phillips, Carr, Razzo, Jolley, Coker, Garcia, and Nurse
Amanda Vertner. See Screening Order (ECF No. 15).
1, 2016, the court entered a Scheduling Order (ECF No. 28)
for discovery to proceed as to defendants Coker, Daos, Goins,
Hightower, Judd, and Phillips setting various discovery and
motion deadlines. The parties later requested an extension of
the discovery deadlines, and the court found good cause to
extend the deadlines by 90 days. Oct. 31, 2016 Order (ECF No.
52) (setting deadlines of January 30, 2017, for discovery and
February 13, 2017, for discovery motions). In a separate
scheduling order entered October 16, 2017, the court set an
additional 90 days of discovery for the recently-served
defendants Brooks, Hans, Garcia, Razo, Jolly, and Vertner.
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 97). Discovery was not re-opened
for defendants Coker, Daos, Goins, Hightower, Judd, and
is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the
Court.” Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc.,
141 F.Supp.3d. 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015). Litigants and their
counsel should strive to be cooperative, practical, and
sensible, and should seek judicial intervention “only
in extraordinary situations that implicate truly significant
interests.” Id. (citing In re Convergent
Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D. Cal.
explained in a prior order, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure allow for discovery requests from one
party to another in the case. See Order (ECF No. 96)
at 4 n.4 (noting that Rule 34 requires requests for
production to be addressed to a party, and the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department is not a party to this case).
In addition, discovery with newly served defendants does not
begin until the defendants have appeared by filing an answer
or other responsive pleading, and the parties have met and
conferred and submitted a proposed discovery plan and
scheduling order which the court approves. Id. at
4:14-17 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26).
to Rule 37, a motion to compel discovery materials may only
be filed when a timely discovery request has been served, the
opposing party has not responded or has inadequately
responded, and the moving party has attempted in good faith
to resolve any dispute about the adequacy of the discovery
responses without the court's intervention. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The Local Rules of Practice state 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.
See LR 26-7(c). The “meet and confer”
process requires the parties “to communicate directly
and discuss in good faith the issues required under the
particular rule or court order.” See LR IA
Vertner's Motion to Compel
motion (ECF No. 99), filed October 20, 2017, indicates that
Ms. Vertner served Mr. Picozzi with special interrogatories
and a request for production of documents on August 3, 2017.
Declr. of Chad C. Chochot (ECF No. 99-1), Ex. A. Picozzi sent
a letter to counsel for Vertner on August 15, 2017,
requesting an indefinite extension to respond to the
discovery requests, pending resolution of a dispute with
Vertner's codefendants. Id., Ex. B. Counsel
advised Mr. Picozzi that an indefinite extension was not
acceptable, but counsel offered him an additional two weeks
to respond. Id., Ex. C. On September 19, 2017,
Picozzi sent a letter to defense counsel indicating he was
not willing to respond to the discovery requests.
Id., Ex. D.
Response (ECF No. 104), filed November 3, 2017, Mr. Picozzi
states that he will comply with the court's Scheduling
Order (ECF No. 97) and answer Vertner's discovery
requests. Thus, Picozzi stated that defense counsel could
withdraw the motion.
single-sentence Reply (ECF No. 105), filed November 7, 2017,
Ms. Vertner requests an order compelling Mr. Picozzi to