United States District Court, D. Nevada
ROBERT J. MCCARTY, Plaintiffs,
US BANCORP, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DISCOVERY
J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
herewith, the Court is entering a scheduling order. The Court
issues this order to advise the parties that discovery
motions filed in this case will not be briefed according to
the default schedule outlined in Local Rule 7-2(b), but will
instead be briefed on shortened deadlines absent leave from
the Court, see Local Rule IA 1-4 (the Court may
alter the local rules).
is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the
Court.” F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196,
203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). Counsel should strive to be
cooperative, practical and sensible, and should seek judicial
intervention “only in extraordinary situations that
implicate truly significant interests.” In re
Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331
(N.D. Cal. 1985). Generally speaking, discovery disputes may
be presented to the Court only after completion of a
pre-filing conference. See, e.g., Cardoza v.
Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141 F.Supp.3d 1137, 1145 (D.
Nev. 2015). This pre-filing conference is not a mere
technicality. Instead, the parties must “personally
engage in two-way communication . . . to meaningfully discuss
each contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid
judicial intervention.” ShuffleMaster, Inc. v.
Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev.
1996). The consultation obligation “promote[s] a frank
exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to
at least narrow and focus matters in controversy before
judicial resolution is sought.” Nevada Power v.
Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D. Nev. 1993). To meet
this obligation, parties must “treat the informal
negotiation process as a substitute for, and not simply a
formalistic prerequisite to, judicial resolution of discovery
disputes.” Id. This is done when the parties
“present to each other the merits of their respective
positions with the same candor, specificity, and support
during the informal negotiations as during the
briefing of discovery motions.”
Id. (emphasis added).
the robust requirements for a pre-filing conference, there
should be no need for discovery motions to be briefed
pursuant to the default deadlines in the local rules in the
vast majority of cases. Quite simply, even before a discovery
motion is filed, the parties must have developed their
respective arguments and must possess the relevant legal
authority supporting those positions. The Court therefore
ORDERS that, absent leave for an extension
being granted, the responses to a discovery
motion shall be filed within 4 days of the service of that
motion and any reply shall be filed within 2 days of
the service of the
extent a more expedited briefing schedule is required under
the circumstances or an order resolving the dispute is
required within a shortened time, the discovery motion shall
be filed in accordance with the requirements for emergency
motions. See, e.g., Cardoza, 141 F.Supp.3d at
event a discovery dispute involves a non-party, the party
involved in that dispute must provide the non-party with a
copy of this order during the pre-filing conference and must
certify that fact with its own filing.
 Indeed, some courts require discovery
disputes to be presented through a joint filing. See,
e.g., C.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-2. While the Court will
not require a joint statement, the parties may stipulate to
filing one. Any such joint statement must separately address
each disputed discovery request, providing the text of the
request, the specific objection(s) to it, the arguments of
the party opposing discovery supporting each objection, and
the discovering parties' arguments opposing each
objection. Cf. C.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-2.1
(outlining similar procedure for presenting discovery
disputes in the form of joint stipulations). The parties must
meaningfully develop their arguments; merely identifying an
objection or response thereto will not suffice. Cf. Kor
Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D.
Nev. 2013). The page limitations established in the local
rules will not apply to joint statements, but counsel must be
as concise as possible. The joint statement must be complete
in itself. The parties may not incorporate by reference
arguments made elsewhere. The joint statement shall attach
any declarations or exhibits that the parties wish to be
considered. The joint statement shall be docketed as a
“Stipulation for Order Resolving Discovery
 The normal rules regarding calculating
deadlines apply. No extra days will be added when service is
completed electronically through CM/ECF, but three days will
be added to the deadlines in cases in which service is
completed by means enumerated in Rule 6(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Intervening weekend days and Court
holidays count toward the deadline imposed. Fed.R.Civ.P.
6(a)(1)(B). To the extent a deadline set herein falls on a
weekend or Court holiday, the filing is due on the next day
that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Court holiday.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). The Court reminds
the parties that the CM/ECF system may automatically generate
deadlines that are inconsistent with this order and, in such
instances, this order controls. See Local Rule IC
 This order and the deadlines set out
herein do not apply to motions seeking only discovery
sanctions, as the pre-filing conference requirements do not
apply to such motions. See, e.g., Nationstar
Mtg., LLC v. Flamingo Trails No. 7 ...