United States District Court, D. Nevada
has brought three motions before the court. Before the court
are two motions to compel by plaintiff, Lance Reberger
(“plaintiff”). The first is a document styled as
“objections in consolidation to Aranas and Koehn
reservation of rights on their admissions” (ECF No.
150). Defendants responded (ECF No. 153) and plaintiff
replied (ECF No. 154). The second is a motion to compel full
discovery from all defendants' [sic], and objection to
Jones [sic] response for production of documents (ECF No.
156). Defendants opposed (ECF No. 160) and plaintiff replied
(ECF No. 164). The third is a motion to compel defendant
Jones to fully/completely respond to interrogatories and
objections to Jones [sic] reservation of rights (ECF No.
157). Defendants opposed (ECF No. 159) and plaintiff replied
(ECF No. 163).
Plaintiff's Objections in Consolidation to Aranas and
Koehn Reservation of Rights on
Their Admissions (ECF No. 150)
has styled this paper as an “objection, ” to this
court's earlier order (ECF No. 146), but this court
construes the objection as a motion for clarification. From
what the court can discern from plaintiff's objection, he
disputes defendants' introductory “reservation of
rights” in their responses to his requests for
admissions. See ECF No. 153, Exs. B & C.
Defendants' reservation of rights are identical and
1. Defendant is bound to comply with statutes, regulations,
and protocols governing the dissemination of confidential and
privileged information. In preparing these responses,
Defendant might not yet have discovered all bases to assert
objections based on confidentiality and privilege.
Accordingly, Defendant reserves the right to assert
objections based on confidentiality and privilege if and when
their applicability to the discovery request is realized; and
2. Defendant has not fully competed his investigation of the
facts related to this case, have not completed this
discovery, or completed preparation for trial. All responses
contained herein are based solely upon such information and
documentation as are presently available to, and physically
known to, Defendant. As such, this answering Defendant
discloses only that information or those documents
that he presently has or is authorized to access. These
responses are hereby given with the understanding that
Defendant reserves the right to revise or amend them as facts
or documents become subsequently known. It is anticipated
that further discovery, investigation, research, and analysis
will supply additional facts and documents, in addition to
known facts and documents, as well as may establish entirely
new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which
may lead to additions to, changes, in, or variations from,
the responses below set forth.
Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
parties who have responded to discovery requests to
supplement prior discovery responses if the party later
discovers that the disclosure or response is incomplete or
incorrect. It is a routine practice for parties to include a
reservations of rights, as quoted above, to insure that all
parties are aware that if new information becomes available,
the responding party is required to supplement the discovery
and disclose it. In addition, parties routinely include a
reservation of rights to protect inadvertent disclosure of
confidential or privileged information.
on the foregoing, plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 150) is
Motion to Compel Full Discovery from All Defendants'
[sic] and Objection to Jones [sic]
Response for Production of Documents (ECF No.
court issued an order on January 24, 2018, which addressed
these identical discovery requests that plaintiff sent to
defendants Aranas, Stark, and Koehn (ECF No. 170). The court
also examined each letter that plaintiff sent to
defendants' counsel for the period April 2017 through
August 2017. (Id.) As set forth in that order, the
court addressed each of these requests for production of
documents and incorporates by this reference its earlier
order. To the extent defendant Jones provided limited
responses to the document production requests, those
responses stand. See ECF No. 160, Ex A.
on the foregoing, plaintiffs motion (ECF No. 156) is
Motion to Compel Defendant Jones to Fully/Completely
Respond to Interrogatories and Objection to Jones [sic]
Reservation of Rights (ECF No. 157)
court has already addressed the plaintiffs objection to
defendants' reservation of rights when responding to
discovery; therefore, the court turns to plaintiffs motion to
compel defendant Jones to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 9A,
11, and 17 through 31.
court has reviewed the interrogatories and responses and
finds that defendant Jones's answers to Interrogatory
Nos. 9A and 11 sufficiently respond to the questions posed.
As for interrogatories 17 through 31, defendant exceeded his
interrogatory limit of twenty-five (25) ...