Montes v. Bank of America, NA et al

Filing 55

ORDER that Montes file a supplement to 35 MOTION to Compel filed by Jose Montes by 4/11/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 4/3/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

JOSE MONTES, et al.,
5

2:13–cv–660–RCJ–VCF

Plaintiffs,
6
7

vs.

ORDER

BANK OF AMERICA, et al.,

8

Defendants.
9
10
11

This matter involves Plaintiff Jose Montes’ bad faith insurance action against Bank of America,
et al. on behalf of a putative class. (See Compl. (#1) Exhibit A at 8–91). Before the court is Montes’

12

motion to compel (#35). Bank of America opposed (#44); and Montes replied (#51).
13

Montes’ moves the court to compel Bank of America to disclose facially discoverable
14
15
16

information in response to Montes’ interrogatories. Bank of America opposes Montes’ request on
several grounds, including (1) relevance, (2) Montes’ alleged failure to meet and confer, (3) Montes’

17

alleged waiver of the right to compel, (4) an alleged bank-customer privilege, and (5) under Federal

18

Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which limits the number of interrogatories to twenty five.

19

The court’s preliminary review of the parties’ papers indicates that Bank of America’s

20

opposition is unavailing. The court is not persuaded that Montes’ requests are not within the scope of

21

Rule 26, prohibited by an alleged bank-customer privilege, or that Montes waived its right to compel.

22
23

Bank of America’s assertion that the parties should be required to meet and confer is similarly
unpersuasive. The record reflects that counsels’ relationship is becoming acrimonious. It is, therefore,

24
25

1

Parenthetical citations refer to the court’s docket.

1

1
2

unlikely that a “meaningful” meet and confer would occur, as required by ShuffleMaster, Inc. v.
Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996).

3

However, the court cannot determine whether Montes’ interrogatories complied with Rule

4

33(a)(1). Montes did not include an original copy of the interrogatories as an exhibit to Montes’ motion

5

or reply. Additionally, Bank of America reorganized and renumbered Montes’ interrogatories when it

6

responded to Montes’ request.

7

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,

8

IT IS ORDERED that Jose Montes will file a SUPPLEMENT to Montes’ motion to compel that

9

includes an original copy of the interrogatories propounded on each Defendant by April 11, 2014.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
11

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2014.
12
13
14

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2