RePinec v. Fincher et al

Filing 26

ORDER Denying without prejudice 23 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 1/8/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

JAMES ALLEN REPINEC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TODD FINCHER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01067-RFB-GWF
ORDER

13
14

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Request for Court’s Order for Production of

15

Documents From Defendants’ Attorneys (#23), filed on December 24, 2014. Defendants Todd

16

Fincher, James Robinson, and Joanne Stratton filed an Opposition (#24) on January 7, 2015.

17

Defendants Chris Brewer and John Cessford filed a Joinder (#25) to the Opposition on January 7,

18

2015.

19

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, requests that the Court order the Defendants to comply with the

20

Plaintiff’s discovery requests. The Defendants did not respond to what they note was an untimely

21

request for production. Before Plaintiff filed his motion to compel, he did not confer with the

22

Defendants to see if the parties could resolve this issue without the Court’s involvement. Local

23

Rule 26-7(b) provides:

24
25

Discovery motions will not be considered unless a statement of the
movant is attached thereto certifying that, after personal consultation
and sincere effort to do so, the parties have been unable to resolve the
matter without Court action.

26
27
28

The Defendants are correct to note that the Plaintiff, though pro se, must follow the same
rules as other parties. However, a pro se litigant must be given leeway by the Court to compensate

1

for the difficulties of proceeding without counsel. The Plaintiff’s discovery requests appear to be

2

relevant to the case, and are not unduly over-broad. The requests were submitted before the

3

discovery deadline. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion, but allow Plaintiff the

4

opportunity to re-raise the motion if a conference with the Defendants cannot resolve the issue.

5

The Plaintiff should meet and confer with the Defendants, whether telephonically or through some

6

other form of communication, and attempt to resolve this issue. Allowing the Plaintiff to obtain

7

reasonable discovery will not cause undue prejudice to either party, nor will it result in undue delay.

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (#23) is denied without

10

prejudice. Plaintiff is hereby advised to meet and confer with the Defendants regarding his

11

discovery requests. If that conference is unsuccessful, the Plaintiff may refile his motion to

12

compel.

13

DATED this 8th day of January, 2015.

14
15
16

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2