Storlie et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 37

ORDER Denying as Moot Defendant's 25 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 01/20/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
RICHARD STORLIE, et al.,
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
)
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00592-RFB-NJK
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION TO COMPEL
(Docket No. 25)

15
16

Pending before the Court is Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s motion

17

to compel. Docket No. 25. The Court has considered Defendant’s motion and Plaintiffs’ response. Docket

18

Nos. 25, 32. No reply was filed. See Docket. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without oral

19

argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is hereby DENIED as moot.

20

I.

Standards

21

Parties are entitled to discover non-privileged information relevant to any party’s claim or defense.

22

See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Relevance for discovery purposes is broadly construed, U.S. E.E.O.C. v.

23

Caesars Ent., Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428, 431 (D. Nev. 2006), and encapsulates any “information reasonably

24

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406

25

F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005).

26

The “party resisting discovery bears the burden of showing why a discovery request should be

27

denied.” See, e.g., F.T.C. v. AMG Servs., Inc., 291 F.R.D. 544, 553 (D. Nev. 2013) (quoting Painters Jt.

28

Committee v. Employee Painters Trust Health & Welfare Fund, 2011 WL 4573349, *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 29,

1

2011)). Broad assertions of harm are insufficient to meet that burden. See, e.g., Caesars Entertainment,

2

237 F.R.D. at 432. Instead, the “objecting party must specifically detail the reasons why each request is

3

irrelevant and may not rely on boilerplate, generalized, conclusory, or speculative arguments.” AMG Servs.,

4

291 F.R.D. at 553 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

5

II.

Analysis

6

Defendant’s motion indicates that, on July 16, 2015, it prouponded Interrogatories and Requests

7

for Production of Documents on Plaintiffs. Docket No. 25 at 3. Plaintiffs’ responses were due on August

8

18, 2015; however, Defendant allowed Plaintiffs an extension until September 2, 2015. Id. On November

9

12, 2015, Defendant’s counsel spoke with Plaintiffs’ counsel, who advised that the responses would be

10

forthcoming immediately. Id. Despite that representation, no responses were provided. Id. As of

11

December 8, 2015, when Defendant filed its motion, Plaintiffs had failed to provide any responses to any

12

of the written discovery Defendant had propounded. Id. at 2-3.

13

In response, Plaintiffs state that they moved to Arkansas after initiating the instant case, and “have

14

been exceptionally difficult to reach.” Docket No. 32 at 3. Additionally, they submit that they have had

15

unspecified and undocumented health problems, “which impacted their ability to respond to the discovery

16

requests.” Id. Plaintiffs concede that their discovery responses were untimely, and submit that they served

17

Defendant with their responses on December 23, 2015. Id. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to deny

18

Defendant’s motion as moot.1 Id.

19
20

No reply was filed, and the deadline for filing a reply has now passed. Therefore, the Court does
not know whether Defendant agrees with Plaintiffs that their responses are sufficient.

21

Plaintiffs have represented to the Court that they have fully responded, albeit extremely late, to the

22

written discovery that is the subject of Defendant’s motion to compel. See Docket No. 32. Defendant has

23

made no representation that Plaintiffs’ responses are insufficient. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to

24

compel, Docket No. 25, is hereby DENIED as moot.

25
1

Plaintiffs also ask the Court not to award Defendant attorneys’ fees for filing its motion to compel,
“because the delay in providing discovery responses ... was not the result of any bad faith or improper
27 motive.” Id. Although bad faith or improper motive is not required for an award of attorneys’ fees,
28 Defendant has not requested fees in its motion. See Docket No. 25. Therefore, the Court will not address
the issue of attorneys’ fees.
26

2

1

Additionally, the Court ADMONISHES Plaintiffs that they must participate in the case they

2

initiated and abide by all applicable deadlines. Failure to do so in the future may result in sanctions,

3

including dismissal of the instant case.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: January 20, 2016.

6
7

______________________________________
____________ _________________
____
__
__ __
NANCY J. KOPPE
ANCY KOPPE
PP
PP
United States Magistrate Judge
nited States Magistrate
e
is
ist at

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3