Heldt et al v. American Invsco Corporation et al

Filing 52

ORDER Denying 48 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 03/26/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
MARY HELDT, et al.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
AMERICAN INVSCO CORPORATION, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01107-KJD-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL
(Docket No. 48)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery from Defendant Meridian

17

Private Residences CH, LLC (“Defendant”). Docket No. 48. Having considered the materials

18

submitted and for the reasons explained below, the Court hereby DENIES without prejudice the

19

motion to compel.

20

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

21

adequate meet and confer efforts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(B) requires that a “party

22

bringing a motion to compel discovery must include with the motion a certification that the movant

23

has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the nonresponsive party.” Similarly, Local

24

Rule 26-7(b) provides that “[d]iscovery motions will not be considered unless a statement of the

25

movant is attached thereto certifying that, after personal consultation and sincere effort to do so, the

26

parties have not been able to resolve the matter without Court action.”

27
28

Judges in this District have previously held that “personal consultation” means the movant
must “personally engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully

1

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

2

ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996). The

3

consultation obligation “promote[s] a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by

4

agreement or to at least narrow and focus matters in controversy before judicial resolution is

5

sought.” Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D.Nev.1993). To meet this obligation,

6

parties must “treat the informal negotiation process as a substitute for, and not simply a formal

7

prerequisite to, judicial review of discovery disputes.” Id. This is done when the parties “present to

8

each other the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support

9

during the informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions.” Id. To ensure that

10

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 (emphasis added).

13

The certification with the pending motion to compel states that Plaintiffs agreed to extend the

14

deadline to respond to the disputed discovery and that Defendant thereafter served answers to

15

interrogatories. See Shinn Decl. at ¶¶ 6-8. Plaintiffs’ motion objects to the answers to the

16

interrogatories as untimely and incomplete. See Docket No. 48 at 9. Plaintiffs, however, fail to

17

make any showing whatsoever regarding whether any meet and confer was held with respect to their

18

objections to the answers to the interrogatories served.

19

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

DATED: March 26, 2013

23
24

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28

2