Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc.
Filing
317
ORDER Denying 312 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel without prejudice and Denying 313 Plaintiff's Motion to Seal as Moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 02/05/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
GERALD HESTER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
12
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
13
Pending before the Court is the Class’s Motion to Compel. Docket No. 312. Also pending
8
Plaintiff,
9
vs.
10
VISION AIRLINES, INC.,
11
Defendant.
Case No. 2:09-cv-00117-RLH-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL AND MOTION TO
SEAL (Docket Nos. 312, 313)
14
before the Court is the Class’s Motion to Seal Exhibits 4 and 5 of its Motion to Compel. Docket No.
15
313. Having considered the materials submitted and for the reasons explained below, the Court
16
hereby DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to compel and DENIES as moot the motion
17
to seal.
18
MOTION TO COMPEL
19
The Court’s initial inquiry regarding the motion to compel is whether the movant made
20
adequate meet and confer efforts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(B) requires that a “party
21
bringing a motion to compel discovery must include with the motion a certification that the movant
22
has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the nonresponsive party.” Similarly, Local
23
Rule 26-7(b) provides that “[d]iscovery motions will not be considered unless a statement of the
24
movant is attached thereto certifying that, after personal consultation and sincere effort to do so, the
25
parties have not been able to resolve the matter without Court action.”
26
Judges in this District have previously held that “personal consultation” means the movant
27
must “personally engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully
28
discuss each contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.”
1
ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996). The
2
consultation obligation “promote[s] a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by
3
agreement or to at least narrow and focus matters in controversy before judicial resolution is
4
sought.” Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D.Nev.1993). To meet this obligation,
5
parties must “treat the informal negotiation process as a substitute for, and not simply a formal
6
prerequisite to, judicial review of discovery disputes.” Id. This is done when the parties “present to
7
each other the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support
8
during the informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions.” Id.
9
To ensure that parties comply with these requirements, movants must file certifications that
10
“accurately and specifically convey to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties
11
attempted to personally resolve the discovery dispute.” ShuffleMaster, 170 F.R.D. at 170 (emphasis
12
added). The certification with the pending motion to compel provides that, “[a]fter personal
13
consultation and sincere effort to do so, the parties have been unable to resolve the matter without
14
Court action.” See Mot. at 14. This certification provides no details whatsoever about the meet and
15
confer process, and is insufficient.1
16
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is hereby DENIED without prejudice.
17
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
18
Also pending before the Court is a related motion to file under seal. Docket No. 313. It
19
appears that the exhibits for which sealing is sought were not actually filed with the Court. As the
20
Court denies without prejudice the motion to compel, the motion to file under seal is hereby
21
DENIED as moot.
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
The Court notes that the memorandum of law provides further that, “[o]n December 19, 2012,
the parties spoke at length in an effort to resolve the outstanding differences but were unable to
come to an agreement regarding the production of Vision’s general ledger and Vision’s assertion of
the accountant-client privilege.” Mot. at 7. This statement should have been included in the
certification rather than the memorandum of law. At any rate, while this statement provides some
additional detail, it is still insufficient to pass muster under ShuffleMaster.
28
2
1
The Court notes, however, that the motion to seal provides no basis for the request, other
2
than Defendant’s designation of Exhibits 4 and 5 as “confidential” pursuant to the protective order
3
entered into in this case. Exhibits to non-dispositive motions may be sealed only upon a
4
“particularized showing” of “good cause.” See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
5
1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130
6
(9th Cir. 2003) (“good cause” burden is met by a showing “that specific prejudice or harm will
7
result” if the document is made public). Such a particularized showing is not made by simply noting
8
that a party designated a document as confidential pursuant to a protective order. See Brocade
9
Comm’ns Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc., 2013 WL 211115, *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013); Ventress
10
v. Japan Airlines, 2008 WL 763183, *4 (D. Haw. Mar. 21, 2008).
11
In the event that Plaintiff refiles the motion to compel, the parties must meet and confer prior
12
to the filing of the motion to compel to determine whether “good cause” exists to file Exhibits 4 and
13
5 under seal. If Defendant believes Exhibits 4 and 5 should be filed under seal, Plaintiff shall file
14
those exhibits under seal concurrently with a motion to seal and Defendant shall file a declaration in
15
support of the motion to seal within three days thereof.
16
CONCLUSION
17
Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, the Motion to Compel (Docket No. 312) is
18
DENIED without prejudice and the Motion to Seal (Docket No. 313) is DENIED as moot.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
DATED this 5th day of February, 2013.
23
24
______________________________________
________________________________
__ __
___
_
NANCY J. KOPPE
NCY
United States Magistrate Judge
ed
Mag at u
Magistrate Judge
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?