Santos v. Allen et al

Filing 75

ORDER denying without prejudice 71 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/5/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

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

AWD ISIDRO BACA, et al.,

14

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01251-KJD-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL
(Docket No. 71)

15
16
17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed on October 27, 2014. Docket
No. 71. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

18

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

19

adequate meet and confer efforts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires that a motion

20

to compel discovery “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or

21

attempted to confer” with the non-responsive party. Similarly, Local Rule 26-7(b) provides that

22

“[d]iscovery motions will not be considered unless a statement of the movant is attached thereto

23

certifying that, after personal consultation and sincere effort to do so, the parties have not been able

24

to resolve the matter without Court action.”

25

The case law in this District is clear that “personal consultation” means the movant must

26

“personally engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully discuss

27

each contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.” ShuffleMaster,

28

Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171-72 (D. Nev. 1996). This obligation

1

“promote[s] a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow

2

and focus matters in controversy before judicial resolution is sought.” Nevada Power v. Monsanto,

3

151 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D.Nev.1993). To meet this obligation, parties must “treat the informal

4

negotiation process as a substitute for, and not simply a formal prerequisite to, judicial review of

5

discovery disputes.” Id. This is done when the parties “present to each other the merits of their

6

respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support during the informal negotiations

7

as during the briefing of discovery motions.” Id. “Only after all the cards have been laid on the

8

table, and a party has meaningfully assessed the relative strengths and weaknesses of its position in

9

light of all available information, can there be a ‘sincere effort’ to resolve the matter.” Id. To ensure

10

that parties comply with these requirements, movants must file certifications that “accurately and

11

specifically convey to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties attempted to

12

personally resolve the discovery dispute.” ShuffleMaster, 170 F.R.D. at 170.

13

Plaintiff did not file a certification in accordance with Local Rule 26-7(b). See Docket No.

14

71. Plaintiff claims that he is exempt from this requirement because the request would be futile and

15

the “documents do not currently exist.” Id., at 3. However, Local Rule 26-7(b) does not provide

16

exemptions from the personal consultation requirement for discovery motions. Thus, Plaintiff has

17

not followed the Local Rules for the purposes of this motion. Accordingly, the motion to compel

18

is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: November 5, 2014

21
22
23
24

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
-2-