United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER [DOCKET NOS. 121, 122]
J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to compel answers
to questions their counsel posed during meet-and-confer, and
for sanctions. Docket Nos. 121, 122. Defendant filed
responses in opposition. Docket Nos. 128, 129. Plaintiffs
filed a reply. Docket No. 132. The Court finds the motions
properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule
78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motions are
instant dispute arises out of documents produced by
Defendant. See Docket No. 121 at 11-14. Plaintiffs
contend that the document production was improper, and they
are contemplating filing a motion to strike that discovery.
See Id. at 2-3, 18-19. In the instant motion,
Plaintiffs ask that the Court compel opposing counsel to
answer questions regarding that document production that they
contend were not sufficiently addressed in the parties'
meet-and-confer efforts. Id. at 20-21. Plaintiffs
contend that obtaining such answers will help them form a
basis for seeking sanctions. Id. at 18. In
particular, Plaintiffs believe the information may help them
establish bad faith conduct by Defendant. Id. at 20.
Defendant correctly notes, however, Plaintiffs have provided
no legal authority that a Court may issue the order
requested. See Docket No. 128 at 11. The federal
rules governing discovery provide for a motion to compel
disclosure of information subject to Rule 26(a)'s
disclosure obligations, a motion to compel responses to
written discovery that has been propounded, and a motion to
compel deposition testimony. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3). Courts do
not compel the revelation of information that is not subject
to an outstanding discovery obligation. See, e.g.,
Barnum v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 39424, at *6 (D. Nev. Mar. 9, 2018) (citing
Scientific Games Corp. v. AGS LLC, 2017 WL 3671286,
at *3 n.6 (D. Nev. Aug. 24, 2017)).
do not seek information that is sought through a pending
discovery request and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that
the information is within the disclosure requirements in Rule
26(a). Instead, Plaintiffs are seeking answers to
questions they posed during a meet-and-confer; answers that
they intend to use in crafting a motion for sanctions. Docket
No. 121 at 20-21.Plaintiffs have cited no case law or rule
providing the Court with authority to grant the relief
sought. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Plaintiffs' motion to compel answers to questions posed
at the meet-and-confer.
also seek sanctions for Defendant's conduct at the
meet-and-confer in not providing the answers at issue.
See Docket No. 122 at 21. The Local Rules provide
the Court with authority to impose sanctions “for a
party's failure to comply with the meet-and-confer
requirement.” Local Rule IA 1 -3(f)(3). As noted above,
Plaintiffs have cited no legal basis on which to conclude
that Defendant must provide the answers sought. As such, the
Court cannot conclude that Defendant engaged in sanctionable
conduct in not providing those answers during the
meet-and-confer process. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion
for sanctions is DENIED.
 Plaintiffs sought emergency treatment
of their motions. As a result, the analysis provided herein
is somewhat truncated to enable an expedited
 Plaintiffs indicate that they are
seeking an order compelling disclosure under Rule 37(a)(3)(A)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g.,
Docket No. 132 at 6. That rule provides that, “[i]f a
party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule
26(a), any other party may move to compel
disclosure and for appropriate sanctions.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added). The plain language
of the rule enables parties to compel disclosure of
information that should have been provided by operation of
Rule 26(a). Plaintiffs have not shown that the answers they
now seek are within the scope of the disclosures required by
 The meet-and-confer requirements do
not apply to motions for sanctions, regardless of whether the
sanctions are predicated on alleged discovery violations.
See Hoffman v. Constr. Protective Servs., Inc., 541
F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Nationstar
Mtg., LLC v. Flamingo Trails No. 7 Landscape Mgmt.
Assoc., 316 F.R.D. 327, 335-36 & n.7 (D. Nev. 2016).
As it appears Plaintiffs seek answers to the disputed
questions for the purpose of crafting a sanctions motion, it
is not clear that the meet-and-confer requirements apply at
all. Because neither party raises this issue, however, the
Court assumes without deciding that a meet-and-confer was
required and that Defendant was required to participate in
 The parties dispute whether a
discovery violation occurred. The Court need not weigh in on
that issue and concludes herein only that Plaintiffs have
provided no basis on which the Court can compel answers to
questions posed during the meet-and-confer process that are
not subject to a pending discovery request or subject to Rule
26(a)'s disclosure obligations.
 Defendant also seeks sanctions in
having to respond to the instant motion. See Docket
No. 128 at 14. This request is not sufficiently developed to
enable a decision. See, e.g., Kor Media Grp. v.