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.

Friedman v. Baca

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 10, 2019

KENNETH FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
ISIDRO BACA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER RE: ECF NO. 122

          WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel, identified by Plaintiff as “First Motion.” (ECF No. 122.) This filing was actually Plaintiff's third motion to compel, following two previous motions to compel, ECF Nos. 108 and 114. On June 19, 2019, the court extended Defendants' response deadline to July 18, 2019. (ECF No. 134.) At a motion hearing conducted that same date (i.e., June 19, 2019), the court directed that Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' opposition would be due by August 8, 2019 (ECF No. 135). However, it does not appear that Defendants have responded to Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 122), which may be due in part to the voluminous filings in just the past ninety (90) days in this case, i.e., approximately sixty (60) filings.[1]

         The court's minute order of August 27, 2019, scheduled a hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 122) and on other matters for September 24, 2019. (ECF No. 176.) In the court's initial preparation for the hearing, the court more closely examined Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 122) and finds that it fails to comply with LR 26-7(b), which requires movant to “set forth in full the text of the discovery originally sought and any response to it.” Instead, Plaintiff attaches a copy of a lengthy letter Plaintiff wrote to Deputy Attorney General Hardcastle wherein he objects to:

(1) Eight (8) responses by “Defendants” to Plaintiff's First Request for Production (“Defendants” in general with no specification as to which Defendant was responding);
(2) Four (4) responses by “Defendants” to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production;
(3) Defendant Aranas two (2) responses to twelve (12) of Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions;
(4) Defendant Walsh's responses to thirteen (13) of Plaintiff's specified interrogatories;
(5) Defendant Walsh's responses to thirty-six (36) of Plaintiff's specified Requests for Admissions;
(6) Defendant Conlin's responses to nine (9) of Plaintiff's specified interrogatories;
(7) Defendant Conlin's responses to twenty-six (26) of Plaintiff's specified Requests for Admissions;
(8) Defendant Pence's responses to sixteen (16) of Plaintiff's specified interrogatories;
(9) Defendant Pence's responses to seventeen (17) of Plaintiff's specified Requests for Admissions; and
(10) Defendant Richard's responses to twenty-two (22) of Plaintiff's specified ...

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.