West v. Nye County Detention et al

Filing 27

ORDER that 23 Motion to Provide Discovery of Unserved Defendants is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants will file Sargent Risen's last known address UNDER SEAL. FURTHER ORDERED that 25 Motion to Extend the Discovery Cut-Off Date is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 26 Motion for Discovery is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 7/21/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***
4
5

HYRUM JOSEPH WEST,
6

Plaintiff,
7
8

Case No. 2:13–cv–271–APG–VCF

vs.
NYE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al.,

9

ORDER

Defendants.

10
11

This matter involves incarcerated pro se Plaintiff Hyrum Joseph West’s civil rights action

12

against Nye County Detention Center and others. Three motions are before the court: (1) West’s motion

13

to provide discovery of unserved defendants (#23); (2) West’s motion to extend the discovery cut-off

14

date (#25); and West’s motion for discovery (#26). The motions are unopposed. For the reasons stated

15

below, West’s motion regarding Sargent Risen is granted and West’s motions to extend and for

16
17

discovery are denied. Each motion is addressed below.
I.

West’s Motion Provide Discovery of Unserved Defendants is Granted

18

West’s motion to provide discovery of unserved defendants seeks an order from this court
19

directing the U.S. Marshal’s to serve Defendant Sargent Risen. An incarcerated pro se litigant
20

proceeding in forma pauperis must “be allowed the chance to serve defendants personally through the
21
22

Marshal’s Service.” Romandette v. Weetabix Co., Inc., 807 F.2d 309, 311 (2nd Cir. 1986); 28 U.S.C. §

23

1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such

24

cases.”). Here, West moves the court for an order directing the U.S. Marshal’s to serve Defendant

25

Sargent Risen. However, West does not have Sargent Risen’s current address.

Therefore, Defendants are ordered to file Sargent Risen’s last known address with the court

1
2

under seal. Once Defendants file Sargent Risen’s last known address with the court, the court will enter

3

an order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve Sargent Risen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

4

II.

West’s Motion to Extend is Denied

5

Next, West moves the court to extend the discovery cut-off date from January 1, 2015, to

6

February 1, 2015. West argues that a thirty-day extension is needed because the current discovery cut-

7

off date falls on the holiday season. West’s motion is not ripe for review. No scheduling order had been

8

entered when West filed his motion. Accordingly, there was no deadline to extend. Pursuant to LR 16-

9

1(b), the court will enter a scheduling order on July 24, 2014.

10

III.

West’s Motion for Discovery is Denied

11

Finally, West also moves the court for an order compelling Defendants to produce a variety of
12

documents. (See Mot. for Disc. (#26) at 2–3). West’s motion is denied for two reasons. First, pursuant to
13
14
15

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 26-7(b), “[d]iscovery motions will not be
considered unless a statement of the movant is attached thereto certifying that, after personal

16

consultation and sincere effort to do so, the parties have been unable to resolve the matter without Court

17

action.” LR 26-7(b); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1) (“The motion must include a certification that the

18

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make

19

disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action”).

20
21
22

It is axiomatic that failure to comply with Rule 37’s certification requirement or Local Rule 267(b) warrants the denial of a motion. See Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D.
166, 172 (D. Nev. 1996) (holding that personal consultation means the movant must personally engage

23

in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully discuss each contested
24

discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention).
25

2

1
2

Second, West is advised that under the Federal Rules there is no such thing as a “motion for
discovery.” West may propound discovery requests as permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

3

and applicable local rules. This includes depositions (see Rule 30), interrogatories (see Rule 33),

4

requests for production of documents (see Rule 34), and requests for admissions (see Rule 36). If West

5

makes a valid discovery request under one of these Rules and Defendants refuse to comply with West’s

6

valid request, then West may file a motion to compel discovery under Rule 37. In the event that West

7

satisfies Rule 37’s requirements, the court may then order Defendants to disclose the information. Here,

8

however, these conditions have not been met.

9

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,

10

IT IS ORDERED that West’s motion to provide discovery of unserved defendants (#23) is
11

GRANTED.
12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants will file Sargent Risen’s last known address
13
14
15

UNDER SEAL.
IT IS ORDERED that West’s motion to extend the discovery cut-off date (#25) is DENIED.

16

IT IS ORDERED that West’s motion for discovery (#26) is DENIED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED this 21st day of July, 2014.

19
20

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25

3