Martel et al v Cain
Filing
22
ORDER that 21 Motion is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/5/14. (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
VALERIE MARTEL, et al.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
DALE CAIN, SR.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:14-cv-00636-RCJ-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION
(Docket No. 21)
16
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for, inter alia, an order compelling initial
17
disclosures. Docket No. 21. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is hereby DENIED without
18
prejudice.
19
The Court’s initial inquiry regarding a motion to compel is whether the movant made adequate
20
meet and confer efforts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires that the “motion must include
21
a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party
22
failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Similarly, Local
23
Rule 26-7(b) provides that “[d]iscovery motions will not be considered unless a statement of the movant
24
is attached thereto certifying that, after personal consultation and sincere effort to do so, the parties have
25
not been able to resolve the matter without Court action.” That the movant believes the dispute must
26
be resolved on an expedited basis does not relieve it of the obligation to properly meet and confer. See,
27
e.g., Goben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26773, *3-4 (D. Nev. Feb. 27, 2013).
28
1
The case law in this District is clear that “personal consultation” means the movant must
2
“personally engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully discuss
3
each contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.” ShuffleMaster, Inc.
4
v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171-72 (D. Nev. 1996). This obligation “promote[s] a
5
frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow and focus matters
6
in controversy before judicial resolution is sought.” Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120
7
(D.Nev.1993). To meet this obligation, parties must “treat the informal negotiation process as a
8
substitute for, and not simply a formal prerequisite to, judicial review of discovery disputes.” Id. This
9
is done when the parties “present to each other the merits of their respective positions with the same
10
candor, specificity, and support during the informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery
11
motions.” Id. “Only after all the cards have been laid on the table, and a party has meaningfully assessed
12
the relative strengths and weaknesses of its position in light of all available information, can there be
13
a ‘sincere effort’ to resolve the matter.” Id. To ensure that parties comply with these requirements,
14
movants must file certifications that “accurately and specifically convey to the court who, where, how,
15
and when the respective parties attempted to personally resolve the discovery dispute.” ShuffleMaster,
16
170 F.R.D. at 170.
17
The Court has reviewed the pending motion and has not located a certification of counsel
18
regarding any meet-and-confer. Accordingly, the motion to compel is hereby DENIED without
19
prejudice.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
DATED: November 5, 2014
22
23
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?