Jiles v. Southern Desert Correctional Center et al

Filing 33

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's 31 Motion to Compel is Denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. on 02/01/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
OFFICER C/O ROBERSON,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
MAURICE JILES

Case No. 2:15-cv-00317-RFB-GWF
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 31), filed on
January 13, 2017. Defendant Roberson filed his Response (ECF No. 32) on January 20, 2017.

15

Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s second set of

16

written discovery including interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission.

17

The certificates of service indicate that Plaintiff mailed his second set of requests for production on

18

December 5, 2016 and that he mailed his second set of interrogatories and requests of admission on

19

December 6, 2016. Defendant represents that his counsel received Plaintiff’s second set of written

20

discovery on December 8, 2016. Discovery was set to close in this matter on December 13, 2016.

21

See ECF No. 21.

22

Plaintiff has filed his instant motion without an attempt to resolve these issues with

23

Defendant’s counsel. The meet and confer requirements in Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of

24

Civil Procedure and Local Rule (“LR”) 26-7(b) require the moving party to confer or attempt to

25

confer in person, or at least by telephone, with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve

26

the discovery dispute prior to filing a motion to compel. Shuffle Master v. Progressive Games, 170

27

F.R.D. 166, 171 (D.Nev. 1996); Walker v. North Las Vegas Police Depart., 2016 WL 427063, *2

28

(D.Nev. Feb. 3, 2016). The moving party is also required to include a certification setting forth its

1
2

efforts and the results of the meet and confer attempts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); LR 26-7(c).
In addition to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the meet and confer requirements, Plaintiff’s

3

second set of discovery is untimely. Plaintiff’s second set of discovery was served about one week

4

prior to the expiration of discovery, which did not give Defendant 30 days to respond as permitted

5

under the rules of civil procedure. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel without

6

prejudice on the grounds that his discovery requests were untimely and for failure to comply with

7

the meet and confer requirements. To the extent that Plaintiff desires to obtain discovery, he may

8

meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel to reach an agreement to extend the discovery deadlines.

9

If Defendant is unwilling to extend the discovery deadlines, then Plaintiff may file a motion to

10

extend the discovery deadlines based upon a showing of good cause as to why Plaintiff did not serve

11

discovery in sufficient time within the discovery deadlines. Accordingly,

12
13
14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 31) is denied
without prejudice.
DATED this 1st day of February, 2017.

15
16
17

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

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