Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mendoza v. Amalgamated Transit Union International

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 23, 2019

JOSE MENDOZA, JR., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          C.W. HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' emergency motions to compel (ECF Nos. 106, 107), filed on May 14, 2019 and May 15, 2019. Plaintiff moves to compel noticed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) witness testimony from defendants Amalgamated Transit Union International (“ATU”) and Keolis Transit America Inc. (“Keolis”). Without resolving plaintiffs' motions on the merits, the court finds it necessary to address plaintiffs' request to hear the motion on an emergency basis.

         The filing of emergency motions is disfavored and should be confined to “the most limited circumstances.” Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141 F.Supp.3d 1137, 1141 (D. Nev. 2015). Emergency motions burden both the parties and the court, requiring each to “abandon other matters to focus on the pending ‘emergency'.” Id. In the interest of fairness, the court generally prioritizes motions pending for a longer period of time. However, this process is impeded when the court is tasked with resolving a motion that is presented as an emergency. See Id. Further, this district also provides several technical requirements regarding the filing of emergency motions. Local Rule 7-4 states that:

(a) Written requests for judicial assistance in resolving an emergency dispute must be titled “Emergency Motion” and be accompanied by a declaration setting forth:
(1) The nature of the emergency;
(2) The office addresses and telephone numbers of movant and all affected parties; and
(3) A statement of movant certifying that, after participation in the meet-and-confer process to resolve the dispute, the movant has been unable to resolve the matter without court action. The statement also must state when and how the other affected people or entities were notified of the motion or, if not notified, why it was not practicable to do so. If the nature of the emergency precludes a meet and confer, the statement must include a detailed description of the emergency, so the court can evaluate whether a meet and confer truly was precluded.
(b) Emergency motions should be rare. A party or attorney's failure to effectively manage deadlines, discovery, trial, or any other aspect of litigation does not constitute an emergency. This rule's provisions are not intended for requests for procedural relief, e.g., a motion to extend time to file a brief or for enlargement of page limits.
(c) The court may determine whether any matter submitted as an “emergency” is, in fact, an emergency. Failure to comply with the requirements for submitting an emergency motion may result in denial of the motion.

LR 7-4(a)-(c).

         Under Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to compel must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the other party to resolve the dispute without court action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). Additionally, Local Rule 26-7(c) provides that:

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 meet-and-confer conference about each disputed discovery request.

         Under LR IA 1-3(f), “to ‘meet and confer' means to communicate directly and discuss in good faith the issues required under the particular rule or court order.” “Unless these rules or a court order provide otherwise, this requirement may only be satisfied through direct dialogue and discussion in a face-to-face meeting, telephone conference, or video conference.” Id.

         Having reviewed the motions, the court does not find a basis to resolve either motion in an expedited fashion. In regards to the motion to compel depositions from Keolis' 30(b)(6) witness, plaintiffs' counsel states that a meet and confer was not held prior to the filing of this motion because opposing counsel refused to participate. (See ECF No. 106-25 at 9.) Plaintiffs' counsel further states that upcoming discovery deadlines necessitate this motion without waiting to conduct a meet and confer with opposing counsel. (Id.) In regards to the motion to compel ATU's 30(b)(6) witness, plaintiffs' counsel's declares that the parties met and conferred in good faith and that the parties were unable to resolve the dispute. (ECF No. 107-10.) While not explicitly stated, the court assumes that both motions are deemed an emergency because of looming discovery deadlines.[1] However, as stated in the Local Rules, discovery deadlines alone are insufficient in prompting an emergency motion. See LR 7-4(b). As such, the court declines to resolve the motions on an emergency basis. Further, given that plaintiffs' counsel failed to conduct a meet and confer ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.