United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (DOCKET NO. 32)
J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant's motion to compel and for
sanctions. Docket No. 32. Plaintiff filed a response in
opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 33-34.
The Court finds the motion properly resolved without a
hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons
discussed below, the motion to compel is
GRANTED and the motion for sanctions is
discovery process in theory should be cooperative and largely
unsupervised by the district court.” Sali v. Corona
Reg. Med. Ctr., ___F.3d___, 2018 WL 1371564, at *1 (9th
Cir. Mar. 19, 2018). When a party fails to provide requested
discovery and when meet-and-confer efforts prove
unsuccessful, however, the requesting party may move to
compel that discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a). Broad discretion
is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery.
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.
2002). Parties are permitted to seek discovery of any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant and proportional to the
needs of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The party seeking
to avoid discovery bears the burden of explaining why
discovery should be denied. See U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars
Entertainment, 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 2006);
see also Carr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 312
F.R.D. 459, 469 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (addressing burdens
following 2015 amendments to the discovery rules).
parties are familiar with the background of this case, the
Court will not recite it herein. The pending motion raises
several discovery disputes, which the Court will address in
seeks an order compelling execution of a Medicare release.
Docket No. 32 at 9-10.Roughly nine months before the motion to
compel was filed, Plaintiff responded to the discovery
request for a Medicare release by agreeing to execute one.
Docket No. 32-2 at 23 (response signed May 8, 2017,
indicating that “Plaintiff is in the process of
gathering the requested signed authorization and will provide
it once it has been executed”). Nonetheless, Plaintiff
now argues that her Medicare information is irrelevant and
overly broad. Docket No. 33 at 3. The time for raising such
an objection was in responding to the discovery response, but
Plaintiff instead agreed to execute the release. Plaintiff
has provided no reason for the Court to allow her to change
course at this late date. Cf. Richmark Corp. v. Timber
Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992)
(“It is well established that a failure to object to
discovery requests within the time required constitutes
waiver of any objection”).
this aspect of the motion to compel will be granted.
Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with an executed Medicare
release within 14 days of the issuance of this order.
next seeks an order for the disclosure of Plaintiff's
prescription records. Docket No. 32 at 11-12. Plaintiff does
not oppose this request, but asserts that her counsel was
never provided with a draft stipulation. Docket No. 33 at 3.
That assertion is belied by the record, as a draft
stipulation was emailed to Plaintiff's counsel several
times. Docket Nos. 34-1, 34-2, 34-3; see also Docket
No. 34 at 9. Having provided no legitimate reason to deny
this request, this aspect of the motion to compel will be
HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to NRS 453.164(8)(b), the
Prescription Monitoring Program shall release Plaintiff Soo
Young Kim's records to defense counsel LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH LLP. No further authorization from
patient Soo Young Kim is required to release the records.
Records for Subsequent Slip-and-Fall and Subsequent Car
next seeks an order compelling records regarding a subsequent
alleged slip-and-fall at a Donna Karan store (and lawsuit
stemming therefrom) and from a subsequent car accident.
Docket No. 32 at 12-13. Plaintiff's response does not
address this aspect of the motion to compel, other than
asserting that some records related to the alleged incident
at Donna Karan were provided concurrently with the ...