Gross v. Housing Authority of the City of Las Vegas et al

Filing 176

ORDER denying 167 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/13/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
IRIS JANE GROSS,
7
8
9
10
11

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY
)
LAS VEGAS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01602-JCM-CWH
ORDER

12
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (#167), filed October 20,
13
2014.
14
This matter has been aggressively litigated by both parties, and the Court is mindful that
15
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. While courts broadly construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants,
16
even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. King v. Atiyeh, 814
17
F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Pro se litigants are not treated more favorably than parties with
18
attorneys of record and are expected to abide by the rules of court in which the litigation proceeds.
19
Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).
20
Plaintiff’s motion to compel (#167) does not comply with Local Rule 26-7(a), which
21
requires “[a]ll motions to compel discovery or for protective order shall set forth in full the text of
22
the discovery originally sought and the response thereto, if any.” Plaintiff sets forth in her motion
23
several discovery requests to which she believes the responses were either improper or inadequate.
24
In so doing, Plaintiff determined not to provide the “full text” of the responses to which she
25
complains – choosing instead to summarize the responses. The reason the Court requires the “full
26
text” of a response is obvious – it is necessary to adequately understand and address the entirety of
27
the dispute and prevents piecemeal presentation. It also prevents a moving party from
28
misrepresenting responses in order to bolster a motion. The failure of Plaintiff to provide the “full

1
2

text” of Defendants’ responses renders the motion incomplete and noncompliant with Court rules.
Even though Plaintiff failed to set forth the “full text” of the responses she claims are

3

inadequate within the body of the motion, the undersigned has conducted a review of the exhibits

4

attached to the motion – none of which contain the full text of either the discovery requests or

5

discovery responses. Consequently, the motion does not comply with Local Rule 26-7(a). The

6

Court will not consider a motion to compel challenging discovery responses without having benefit

7

of the full text of the responses in question.

8

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (#167) is denied.

10

Dated: November 13, 2014.

11
12
13

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

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