Clark v. Guerrero

Filing 128

ORDER Granting 121 Plaintiff's Motion for Meet and Confer to the extent Plaintiff shall immediately send defense counsel a letter outlining in detail any discovery dispute he has. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 2/25/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 MICHAEL CLARK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) OFFICER GUERRERO, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:09-cv-00141-JCM-PAL ORDER (Mtn to Meet & Confer - Dkt. #121) 12 13 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Michael Clark’s Motion for Order for Defense 14 Counsel to Meet and Confer for Stipulation (Dkt. #121). The court has considered the Motion, 15 Defendant Adrian Guerrero’s Response (Dkt. #123), and Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #125). 16 Plaintiff, a former inmate of the Nevada Department of Corrections, is proceeding in this action 17 pro se. He filed a complaint in state court, and it was removed to this court on January 21, 2009. This 18 case has a complicated procedural history as outlined in the court’s previous Order (Dkt. #102). On 19 October 22, 2012, the court entered a Scheduling Order (Dkt. #118). Discovery in this case closed on 20 January 22, 2013. Dispositive motions were due February 21, 2013. Defendant filed a Motion to 21 Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline (Dkt. #126) on February 14, 2013. That Motion is currently 22 pending before the district judge. 23 The instant Motion represents that Plaintiff needs the court to direct defense counsel to “meet 24 and confer for stipulation before filing a motion for summary judgment.” See Motion at 1. Defendant 25 responds that after receiving the Motion, defense counsel Kelly M. Smith scheduled a telephonic 26 conference with Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendants argue Plaintiff’s request is moot. Plaintiff replies that 27 he did not conduct a meet and confer with defense counsel, and the only thing he discussed with 28 defense counsel was settlement. Plaintiff insists “the parties must meet and confer for stipulation.” 1 Reply at 2. Attached to the reply is an “affidavit” by the Plaintiff indicating he was out of town on 2 December 19, 2012, as defense counsel was aware. He also indicates he sent defense counsel a request 3 for discovery on January 13, 2013, and he appears to be requesting a meet and confer conference to 4 discuss discovery defense counsel either has not responded to or discovery that he believes is 5 incomplete. 6 If Plaintiff wants a meet and confer conference to discuss Defendant’s discovery responses, he 7 should send defense counsel a letter outlining in detail what his disputes are. The court will require 8 defense counsel to respond in writing and to participate in a telephonic dispute resolution conference 9 within two weeks of receipt of Plaintiff’s letter in an effort to resolve any discovery dispute without 10 court intervention. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Meet and Confer (Dkt. #121) is GRANTED to the 13 extent Plaintiff shall immediately send defense counsel a letter outlining in detail any discovery 14 disputes he has. Defense counsel shall respond in writing and shall participate in a telephonic dispute 15 resolution conference with the Plaintiff no later than fourteen days after receipt of Plaintiff’s letter. 16 Plaintiff’s letter shall propose dates and times for the dispute resolution conference. 17 Dated this 25th day of February, 2012. 18 19 20 _________________________________________ PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?