United States District Court, D. Nevada
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs,
NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 26, 28]
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel. Docket
No. 26. Defendant filed a response in opposition. Docket No.
27. Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 29. Also pending
before the Court are the cross-requests for the imposition of
sanctions. See Docket No. 26 at 23-24; Docket No.
28. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing.
See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed
below, the motion to compel is DENIED
without prejudice and the cross-requests for sanctions are
also DENIED without prejudice.
MOTION TO COMPEL
Court begins with an analysis of the motion to compel. For
the reasons discussed below, that motion is procedurally
defective and will be denied without prejudice on that basis.
parties raise a threshold dispute as to whether a sufficient
prefiling conference was conducted prior to the filing of the
instant motion to compel. “Discovery 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).
Discovery motions will not be considered “unless the
movant (1) has made a good faith effort to meet and confer as
defined by 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.” Local Rule 26-7(c).
in this District have held that these rules require that the
movant must “personally engage in two-way communication
with the nonresponding party to meaningfully discuss each
contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid
judicial intervention.” Shuffle Master, 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. To ensure that parties
comply with these requirements, movants must file
certifications that “accurately and specifically convey
to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties
attempted to personally resolve the discovery dispute.”
ShuffleMaster, 170 F.R.D. at 170. Courts may look
beyond the certification made to determine whether a
sufficient meet-and-confer actually took place. See,
e.g., Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141
F.Supp.3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015).
case, a telephonic conference took place on October 14, 2019.
See Docket No. 26-1 at ¶ 9. At that conference,
defense counsel did not indicate that Defendant had
additional documents or information to produce in response to
the disputed discovery. See Id. Nonetheless, defense
counsel indicated at the conference and thereafter in written
correspondence that she would attempt to supplement the
discovery responses as soon as practicable, likely by October
25, 2019. See Docket No. 27-1 at ¶¶ 12,
One day before the projected date for supplemental responses,
on October 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to
compel. Defense counsel ultimately served supplemental
responses on October 28, 2019. See Id. at
the above circumstances, a sufficient prefiling conference
did not take place prior to the filing of the motion to
compel. Supplemental responses were being prepared that could
have at least narrowed the issues in dispute. Cf. Nevada
Power, 151 F.R.D. at 120. Rather than await those
forthcoming supplemental responses, Plaintiff filed the
instant motion to compel seeking relief with respect to 23
requests for production, six interrogatories, and three
requests for admission. As the meet-and-confer process had
not run its course, the motion to compel was premature.
See Garcia v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, __
F.R.D.__, 2019 WL 3814721, at *3 n.7 (D. Nev. Aug. 13, 2019)
(“additional in-person or telephonic conferences are
generally required when the circumstances of a discovery
dispute have evolved”); see also Branch Banking
Trust Co. v. Pebble Creek Plaza, LLC, 2013 WL 12176465,
at *2 (D. Nev. July 26, 2013) (meet-and-confer efforts that
did not address supplemental disclosure were
of the motion to compel without prejudice is appropriate on
Presentation on the Merits
noted above, the instant motion to compel seeks relief with
respect to 23 requests for production, six interrogatories,
and three requests for admission. Courts only address
well-developed arguments, a requirement that applies with
equal force to discovery motion practice. See, e.g.,
On Demand Direct Response, LLC v. McCart-Pollak,
2018 WL 2014067, at *1 & n.2 (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2018).
“Parties may not merely identify an objection or
response in seeking judicial intervention.” Oliva
v. Cox Comms. Las Vegas, Inc., 2018 WL 6171780, at *4
(D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2018).
the motion at times provides minimal discussion as to why
relief should be granted, followed by pages of single-spaced
discovery requests and responses. For example, the motion
contains a single paragraph arguing that documents related to
Defendant's claim of prejudice should be compelled,
followed by roughly three pages of single-spaced discovery
requests and objections. See Docket No. 26 at 10-13.
There is no discussion as to the specifics of each request
and response. A proper motion to compel must provide
meaningfully-developed argument as to why each particular
discovery response was insufficient.
of the motion to compel without prejudice is appropriate on