Lane v. Clark County

Filing 70

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 67 Motion for Answer Regarding Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 08/15/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
RANDEL LANE,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
CLARK COUNTY,
14
Defendant.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-00485-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 67)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Answer Regarding Discovery. Docket No.

17 67. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED.
18

Defendant’s motion appears to relate to Plaintiff’s state case, rather than the instant case. See

19 Docket No. 67 at 3 (“I believe these questions should be investigated by attorney Kennedy before he
20 files an opposing brief in the State”). To the extent the motion does apply to the instant case, however,
21 it is an improper motion to compel discovery.
22

Discovery in the instant case has been closed since February 2, 2012. Docket No. 21 at 2.

23 Plaintiff cannot therefore request discovery responses more than four years after the close of discovery.
24

Further, the Court’s initial inquiry regarding a motion to compel is whether the movant made

25 adequate meet and confer efforts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(B) requires that a “party
26 bringing a motion to compel discovery must include with the motion a certification that the movant has
27 in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the nonresponsive party.” Similarly, Local Rule 2628 7(c) provides that discovery motions will not be considered unless a the movant has “made a good-faith

1 effort to meet and confer as defined in LR IA 1-3(f) before filing the motion,” and “includes a
2 declaration setting forth the detailes and results of the meet-and-confer conference about each disputed
3 discovery request. Plaintiff has failed to do so. Therefore, even if Plaintiff’s motion related to the
4 instant case rather than the state case, and even if discovery had not closed more than four years ago,
5 Plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with the meet and confer requirement.
6

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion, Docket No. 67, is hereby DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: August 15, 2016.

9
10
11

______________________________________
______________________________
_
_
_
___ ___
___
___
NANCY J. KOPPE
N C
NANCY KOPPE
OPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
States Ma is
Magistrate
t

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2