United States District Court, D. Nevada
MARTIN S. ROOD, Plaintiffs,
LIBERTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, INC., Defendants.
ORDER, Docket No. 26
J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court is Defendant's motion to compel. Docket
No. 26. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No.
29. Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 33. The Court finds
the motion properly resolved without a hearing. See
Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below,
Defendant's motion to compel is GRANTED.
discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny
discovery.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,
751 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Crawford-El v.
Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998). When a party fails to
provide discovery and the parties' attempts to resolve
the dispute without Court intervention are unsuccessful, the
opposing party may seek an order compelling that discovery.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a). The party seeking to avoid discovery
bears the burden of showing why that discovery should not be
permitted. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d
418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); 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
discovery rules). The party resisting discovery must
specifically detail the reasons why each request is
irrelevant or otherwise objectionable, and may not rely on
boilerplate, generalized, conclusory, or speculative
arguments. See, e.g., F.T.C. v. AMG Servs.,
Inc., 291 F.R.D. 544, 552 (D. Nev. 2013). Arguments
against discovery must be supported by “specific
examples and articulated reasoning.” U.S. E.E.O.C.
v. Caesars Ent., 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 2006).
moves to compel further responses to written discovery from
Plaintiff. In particular, Defendant argues that
Plaintiff's responses provided to Interrogatories 2, 7,
8, 9, 12, 1314, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are deficient. Docket No.
26 at 9-17. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has also failed
to verify his interrogatory responses. Id. at 9.
Defendant further argues that Plaintiff's responses to
Requests for Production 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are
deficient. Id. at 17-22.
to the schoolyard comeback of “I know you are, but what
am I, ” see, e.g., Pee Wee's Big
Adventure (Warner Bros. 1985), Plaintiff provides no
justification for his own discovery responses and, instead,
points to aspects of Defendant's discovery responses that
Plaintiff contends are similar, see Docket No. 29 at
9-12. Plaintiff cites no legal authority
standing for the proposition that he need not provide
discovery that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure based solely on purported discovery violations by
the opposing party. The discovery rules do not envision this
kind of playground tantrum. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(E) (“A party is not excused from making its
disclosures because . . . another party has not made its
disclosures”); see also Public Health Equip. &
Supply Co., Inc. v. Clarke Mosquito Control Prods.,
Inc., No. SA-08-cv-0895 OG (NN), 2011 WL 2470059, at *2
(W.D. Tex. June 16, 2011) (an argument of “unclean
hands” has “no place in the analysis of a motion
to compel brought pursuant to the federal discovery
Plaintiff provides no legally sufficient argument that he is
not required to provide further discovery responses as
requested by Defendant, he has not met his burden in opposing
the motion to compel. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to
compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide
supplemental discovery responses as requested in
Defendant's motion within 10 days of the issuance of this
 Plaintiff fails to address many of the
specific issues raised in the motion to compel. For example,
Defendant argues that Plaintiff improperly invoked the
attorney-client privilege. Docket No. 26 at 12-13.
Plaintiff's response provides no argument of any kind
regarding that issue. See Docket No. 29 at 9-12.
Plaintiff has acquiesced in the granting of Defendant's
motion to compel with respect to any argument that he failed
to address in his response. See Knickmeyer v. Nevada ex
rel Eighth Judicial District Court, 173 F.Supp.3d 1034,
1044 (D. Nev. 2016); see also Kiessling v. Rader,
No. 2:16-cv-0690-GMN-NJK, 2018 WL 1401972, at *3 (D. Nev.
Mar. 20, 2018) (arguments are waived if not included in
response to motion to compel).
 Plaintiff brought his own motion to
compel, which the Court denies without prejudice through an
order issued concurrently herewith. The Court expresses no
opinion herein as to whether ...