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