Harden v. Soboro et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying 64 Motion for reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/20/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
HAROLD D. HARDEN,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SOBORO, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-00560-JAD-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Docket No. 64)

16

On January 5, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to file discovery. Docket No. 62. The

17

Court instructed Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding in this action pro se, that parties should not file

18

discovery documents with the Court but should instead “serve the discovery directly on Defendants’

19

counsel.” See Docket No. 62 (discussing Local Rule 26-8). Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s

20

motion for reconsideration of that order. Docket No. 64. Defendants have filed a response indicating

21

that they have agreed to respond to discovery even though it has not been served on them. See Docket

22

No. 66.

23

The Court reiterates that parties do not file discovery documents. When a party seeks to get

24

discovery from the opposing party, he serves that discovery directly on the opposing party’s attorney.

25

There is no requirement to file discovery with the Court in order for the discovery to be effective and

26

to get a response. In this case, Defendants’ counsel has indicated that she stipulated to the discovery at

1

issue being deemed served as of December 23, 2014. See Docket No. 66. As such, there appears to be

2

no need to ask this Court for relief and the motion for reconsideration is DENIED as moot.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED: January 20, 2015

5
6

NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2