United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (MOTS. TO COMPEL - ECF, 37, 42, MOT. FOR ORDER
- ECF NO. 47 DEFENDANT. MOT. EXT. DISC. - ECF NO.
A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the court on pro se Plaintiff Alexander
Walls' Motion to Compel Discovery Materials (ECF No. 37).
The court has considered the Motion, and Defendant CoreCivic,
Inc.'s (“CoreCivic”) Response (ECF No. 38).
No reply was filed and the deadline to do so has now expired.
Also before the court are CoreCivic's Motion to Compel
Responses to Written Discovery (ECF No. 42), Motion for Order
(ECF No. 47), and Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (ECF
No. 49). Mr. Walls did not respond to CoreCivic's Motion
to Compel and the deadline to do so has now expired. 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
Walls is a prisoner currently in the custody of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons in Coleman, Florida. In September 2016, the
court entered an Order (ECF No. 31) granting Walls'
Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 27) and referring
this case to the Pilot Pro Bono Program. The order stated the
court could not guarantee a volunteer lawyer would be willing
and available to accept the appointment. CoreCivic
subsequently requested new discovery deadlines. See
Mot. Set Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 32).
diligent attempts to find a volunteer lawyer for nearly a
year, the Pilot Pro Bono granted CoreCivic's motion and
set the following new discovery deadlines: (a) close of
discovery: March 28, 2018; (b) expert disclosures: January
26, 2018; (c) rebuttal expert disclosures: February 26, 2018;
(d) interim status report: January 26, 2018; (e) extensions
or modifications of the discovery plan and scheduling order:
March 8, 2018; (f) dispositive motions: April 27, 2018; and
(g) joint pretrial order: May 28, 2018. See Sept. 29,
2017 Order (ECF No. 34).
and their counsel should strive to be cooperative during
discovery and should only seek judicial intervention
“in extraordinary situations that implicate truly
significant interests.” Cardoza v. Bloomin'
Brands, Inc., 141 F.Supp.3d. 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015)
(citation omitted). Under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of Civil Practice,
filing a motion with the court is not the proper procedure
for requesting written discovery materials from a party. Once
the court enters a scheduling order, the parties are
permitted to engage in discovery. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16; LR 16-1(b). Discovery requests must be served
directly on opposing parties, who then have 30 days
to respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. The Local Rules
Unless the court orders otherwise, written discovery,
including discovery requests, discovery responses,
deposition notices, and deposition transcripts, must not
be filed with the court. Originals of responses to
written discovery requests must be served on the party who
served the discovery request, and that party must make the
originals available at the pretrial hearing, at trial, or
when ordered by the court….
LR 26-8 (emphasis added). The court may strike improperly
filed discovery documents from the docket. See,
e.g., Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc.,
627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010); Adobe Sys. Inc. v.
Christenson, 891 F.Supp.2d 1194, 1201 (D. Nev. 2012).
served with written discovery requests is obligated to
provide complete and truthful responses to all types of
discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1).
Rule 26(b) permits “discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). However, all discovery is
subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C). Rule
26(e) requires a party to supplement or correct its initial
disclosures or discovery responses in a timely manner if the
party learns “the disclosure or response is incomplete
or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information
has not otherwise been known to the other parties during the
discovery process or in writing.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
motion to compel discovery 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); LR 26-7.
The Local Rules 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. 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.” LR IA 1-3(f).
37(a)(3) explicitly provides that an evasive or incomplete
disclosure, answer, or response to a discovery request
“is to be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or
respond.” Goodman v. Staples The Office
Superstore, 644 F.3d 817, 827 (9th Cir. 2011). A party
who fails to comply with its initial disclosure requirements
and duty to timely supplement or correct disclosures or
responses may not use any information not disclosed or
supplemented “to supply evidence on a motion, at a
hearing, or at trial, unless the failure was substantially
justified or is harmless.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1);
see also Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist.,
768 F.3d 843, 861 (9th Cir. 2014).
Walls' Motion to Compel Discovery
Walls' motion (ECF No. 37) indicates that he received
written discovery requests from CoreCivic's counsel in
October 2017. He is receiving assistance from his case
manager and counselor at the corrections facility to comply
with the requests. Walls states he has not received his case
file from his previous attorney despite writing counsel a
letter requesting the file and having his counselor leave
counsel multiple ...