United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER RE: ECF NO. 36
WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is Plaintiff's "Motion to Compell
Discovery" (ECF No. 36) and this court's initial
order regarding Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 38). As
reflected in this court's minute order of this date (ECF
No. 39), the court's order of May 21, 2018 (ECF No. 38)
has been withdrawn.
court's order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel
was predicated in part on the conclusion the motion has been
filed after the expiration of the deadline to pursue
discovery motions. The court relied upon this court's
amended scheduling order of December 18, 2017 (ECF No. 32)
which set that deadline for April 9, 2018. The court
inadvertently overlooked the court's ruling on
Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 31) which had sought
extensions of the December 18, 2017 deadlines due to his
being in lock down status at FCI Coleman, Florida. When
granting Plaintiff's motion, the court re-set the
deadline for completion of discovery for May 17, 2018, and
the deadline for discovery motions for May 25, 2018. (ECF No.
Plaintiff's "Motion to Compell Discovery, ”
which was mailed on May 13, 2018, was timely filed and should
not have been denied on that basis. The component of this
court's order of May 21, 2018 (ECF No. 38) is withdrawn.
the rationale expressed in the remainder of the order
regarding the failure of Plaintiff to comply with the
“meet and confer” requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(1) and LR 26-7(c) correctly identified a major
deficiency in Plaintiff's discovery motion. First, any
discovery motion filed with the court “must set forth
in full the text of the discovery originally sought and any
response to it.” LR 26-7(b). Second, the court will not
entertain discovery motions unless the movant also includes a
declaration about his “meet and confer”
obligations which sets forth “. . . the details and
results of the meet and confer conference about each
disputed discovery request.” LR 26-7(c); (emphasis
noted in this court's order (ECF No. 38), these
procedures and preconditions to any discovery motion were
previously explained in detail to Plaintiff in this
court's earlier order of January 18, 2018, as follows:
Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Production of
Documents (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff requests Defendants'
counsel “to produce all documents and evidence, in
order to properly prepare for trial and on going (sic)
litigantian (sic).” (Id.)
Plaintiff is advised that the proper procedure is to serve a
Request for Production under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. The Request
should be tailored to the specific documents of which
Plaintiff seeks production. The court cannot discern whether
Plaintiff has done so. In his letter to Deputy District
Attorney Kaplan (ECF No. 26 at 6), it appears Plaintiff
references his possibly having served a Request for
Production. If he has done so and is dissatisfied with the
Defendant's response, he should - after attempting to
resolve the discovery dispute with Defendant's counsel
-file a motion to compel. However, pursuant to LR 26-7, a
motion to compel should be accompanied with the text of the
disputed request and response.
hopefully avoid any further misunderstandings by Plaintiff as
to the requirement of the Local Rules regarding resolution of
a discovery dispute and any discovery motions, the court sets
forth in this order the relevant text of two Local Rules:
26-7. DISCOVERY MOTIONS
(a) Unless the court orders otherwise, all discovery disputes
are referred to the magistrate judge assigned to the case.
(b) All motions to compel discovery or for a protective order
must set forth in full the text of the discovery originally
sought and any response to it.
(c) Discovery motions will not be considered unless the
movant (1) has made a good faith effort to meet and confer as
defined in LR IA 1-3(f) before filing the motion, and (2)
includes a declaration setting forth the details and results
of the ...