United States District Court, D. Nevada
HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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
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
(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
(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.
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)
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
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.
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. 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 ...