Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC v. Galam et al

Filing 148

ORDER that 147 Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/12/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
RUSSELL ROAD FOOD & BEVERAGE, LLC,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
MIKE GALAM, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-0776-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL
(Docket No. 147)

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Compel, filed on May 9, 2014. Docket No. 147. For
the reasons discussed below, the motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

18

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

19

meet and confer efforts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires that a motion to compel

20

discovery “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to

21

confer” with the non-responsive party. Similarly, Local Rule 26-7(b) provides that “[d]iscovery motions

22

will not be considered unless a statement of the movant is attached thereto certifying that, after personal

23

consultation and sincere effort to do so, the parties have not been able to resolve the matter without

24

Court action.”

25

The case law in this District is clear that “personal consultation” means the movant must

26

“personally engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully discuss

27

each contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.” ShuffleMaster, Inc.

28

v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171-72 (D. Nev. 1996). This obligation “promote[s] a

1

frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow and focus matters

2

in controversy before judicial resolution is sought.” Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120

3

(D.Nev.1993). To meet this obligation, parties must “treat the informal negotiation process as a

4

substitute for, and not simply a formal prerequisite to, judicial review of discovery disputes.” Id. This

5

is done when the parties “present to each other the merits of their respective positions with the same

6

candor, specificity, and support during the informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery

7

motions.” Id. “Only after all the cards have been laid on the table, and a party has meaningfully assessed

8

the relative strengths and weaknesses of its position in light of all available information, can there be

9

a ‘sincere effort’ to resolve the matter.” Id. To ensure that parties comply with these requirements,

10

movants must file certifications that “accurately and specifically convey to the court who, where, how,

11

and when the respective parties attempted to personally resolve the discovery dispute.” ShuffleMaster,

12

170 F.R.D. at 170.

13

The Court has reviewed the pending certification of counsel. Docket No. 147, Altman Decl. at

14

¶¶ 4-5, Exhs. A-B. That certification appears to provide only a description of written communications

15

between counsel, which are not sufficient to satisfy the “personal consultation” requirement. See

16

ShuffleMaster, 170 F.R.D. at 172 (exchange of letters does not satisfy meet and confer requirements).

17

Accordingly, the motion to compel is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: May 12, 2014

20
21

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2