Johnson v. Williams et al

Filing 20

ORDER Denying 17 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 7/13/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

KEVIN JOHNSON

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________)

2:14-cv-00222-JCM-CWH
ORDER

13
14
15

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (#17), filed June 26, 2015, and
Defendants’ Response (#19), filed July 9, 2015.

16

In the Scheduling Order (#16), the parties were specifically instructed that they “must first

17

undertake a good faith effort to resolve any dispute among the parties.” They were further pointed

18

to Rule 37(a)(1), which requires any discovery motion to “include a certification that the movant has

19

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

20

discovery in an effort to obtain it without court order.” They were put on notice that Local Rule 26-

21

7(b) provides that a discovery motion “will not be considered unless a statement of the movant is

22

attached certifying that, after personal consultation and sincere effort to do so, the parties have been

23

unable to resolve the matter without court action.” They were informed that, given the nature of the

24

lawsuit, the consultation requirements could be satisfied “either by a telephone consultation or a

25

written communication whereby the inmate sincerely attempted to resolve the discovery dispute.”

26

Lastly, the parties were put on notice of LR 26-7(a), which requires all motions to compel discovery

27

or for protective order to set forth in full the text of the discovery originally sought and the responses

28

thereto, if any.

1

Plaintiff’s motion to compel does not satisfy any of the foregoing requirements and, therefore,

2

will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is instructed to comply with the requirements specifically

3

set forth in the Scheduling Order before filing any additional discovery motions.

4

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (#17) is denied without

6
7

prejudice.
DATED: July 13, 2015.

8
9
10

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

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2