Santos v. Allen et al

Filing 142

ORDER that 137 Motion for Order to Permit Plaintiff to Conduct Telephonic Deposition of Defendants and 139 Motion for Leave of Court to Serve Up to Ten Additional Interrogatories on Defendants are DENIED without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED tha t 136 Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to Order the Parties to Meet and Confer is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer to discuss all remaining discovery disputes. If they are unable to resolve the disputes in their entirety, the parties may bring renewed discovery motions no later than September 7, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/11/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
RONALD R. SANTOS,
10
Plaintiff(s),
11
12

vs.

13

ISIDRO BACA, et al.,

14

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01251-KJD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 136, 137, 139)

15
16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order to meet and confer between

17

parties. Docket No. 136. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order to permit

18

Plaintiff to conduct telephonic deposition of Defendants and Plaintiff’s motion for leave of court to

19

serve up to ten additional interrogatories on Defendants. Docket Nos. 137, 139. The Court finds

20

the motions properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2.

21

I.

ANALYSIS

22

The Court has already instructed Plaintiff that discovery motions will not be considered

23

unless “a statement of the movant is attached thereto certifying that, after personal consultation and

24

sincere effort to do so, the parties have not been able to resolve the matter without Court action.”

25

Docket No. 75. On November 5, 2014, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to

26

compel for his failure to file a certification in accordance with Local Rule 26-7(b). Id. The Court’s

27

Order explained that Plaintiff was not exempt from the personal consultation requirement for

28

discovery motions. Id., at 2.

1

Despite the Court’s clear instructions, Plaintiff has filed two discovery motions without

2

including a certification in accordance with Local Rule 26-7(b). Docket Nos. 137, 139. Thus,

3

Plaintiff has not followed the Local Rules for the purposes of these motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

4

motion for an order to permit Plaintiff to conduct telephonic deposition of Defendants and Plaintiff’s

5

motion for leave of court to serve up to ten additional interrogatories on Defendants (Docket Nos.

6

137, 139) are hereby DENIED without prejudice.

7

Plaintiff also filed a motion for the Court to order the parties to meet and confer before

8

Plaintiff re-files his motion to compel and/or for sanctions. Docket No. 136. As discussed

9

previously, the meet and confer requirement is not optional. As such, Plaintiff is required to have

10

a proper meet and confer with Defendants before re-filing his motion to compel and/or for sanctions,

11

as well as before filing any additional discovery motions in this case. Plaintiff does not need a Court

12

order to comply with this requirement. Moreover, Plaintiff does not represent that he has attempted

13

to conduct a meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel before filing the present motion.

14

Plaintiff also appears to be requesting the Court to order the parties to enter settlement

15

negotiations. Id., at 2. Plaintiff notes that he has put forth a settlement offer and has not received

16

a denial of his offer or a counteroffer from Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff states that he “requests

17

this Court to ‘encourage or require’ the State to capitulate, or at least do something towards

18

resolution.” Id., at 2. It is well settled that the Court cannot force parties to settle a case, but it may

19

require attendance at a settlement conference. See Wilson v. KRD Trucking W., 2013 WL 836995,

20

at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2013) (citing G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648,

21

650–53 (7th Cir.1989)(en banc)). As such, the Court cannot force Defendants’ counsel to enter

22

settlement discussions with Plaintiff. To the extent either or both parties request a settlement

23

conference under Local Rule 16-5, they must file a motion or stipulation seeking such relief.

24

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to order the parties to meet and confer (Docket

25

No. 136) is hereby DENIED.

26

...

27

...

28

...
-2-

1

II.

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons discussed above,

3

IT IS SO ORDERED:

4

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for an order to permit Plaintiff to conduct telephonic deposition of

5

Defendants and Plaintiff’s motion for leave of court to serve up to ten additional

6

interrogatories on Defendants (Docket Nos. 137, 139) are hereby DENIED without

7

prejudice.

8

2.

9
10

Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to order the parties to meet and confer (Docket No.
136) is hereby DENIED.

3.

The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer to discuss all remaining discovery

11

disputes. If they are unable to resolve the disputes in their entirety, the parties may

12

bring renewed discovery motions no later than September 7, 2015.

13

DATED: August 11, 2015

14
15
16

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-