McCarty v. Roos et al

Filing 143

ORDER Denying 123 Plaintiff's Motion for Immediate Specific Limited Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 04/18/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

ROBERT JOSEPH McCARTY,

8
Plaintiff,
9
vs.
10
JOHN V. ROOS, et al.,
11
12

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-001538-JCM-NJK

ORDER

13
Before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Joseph McCarty’s Motion for Immediate Specific
14
Limited Discovery (#123). The Plaintiff has requested, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(B),
15
that the Court compel the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff with “all Department of State and
16
Department of Justice Files related to the Plaintiff to include, but not limited to, all copies of
17
responses regarding the Plaintiff to members of Congress, Media, President, Vice President, etc.”
18
Motion (#123) (emphasis removed). He has also requested “the most basic information.” Id.
19
The Plaintiff is correct that Rule 26 entitles parties to discovery; however, pursuant to
20
Rule 26(d), neither party is required to provide any discovery until after the Rule 26(f)
21
conference occurs. To date, no 26(f) conference has occurred, and therefore this request for
22

discovery will be denied as premature.1

23
The Plaintiff’s request is also denied for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2)(B),
24
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34, and LR 26-7. Once discovery begins, the parties must meet and confer in good
25
26
1

27
28

Under LR 26-1(d), the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) meeting must occur “within thirty (30) days after
the first defendant answers or otherwise appears.” Then, “[f]ourteen (14) days after the mandatory
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the parties shall submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling
order.” Accordingly, because the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 5, 2013, the Rule
26(f) conference should be forthcoming. The Court anticipates a Discovery Plan and Scheduling
Order will be filed on or before May 19, 2013.

1

faith and attempt to resolve their discovery disputes before bringing the matter before the Court.

2

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2)(B) and LR 26-7. Finally, requests for production must comply with

3

Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s request does not meet these requirements.

4

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion (#123) shall be denied.

5

CONCLUSION

6

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert Joseph McCarty’s Motion for

8
9

Immediate Specific Limited Discovery (#123) is DENIED.
DATED this

18th

day of April, 2013

10
11
12
13

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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