Heyman v. State of Nevada ex rel Board of Regents for the Nevada System of Higher Education et al

Filing 157

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 146 Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel is Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/11/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

DARREN HEYMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA EX REL. BOARD OF
)
REGENTS OF THE NEVADA SYSTEM OF
)
HIGHER EDUCATION ON BEHALF OF
)
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, et al. )
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01228-RFB-GWF
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel (ECF No. 146), filed on
April 24, 2017.
Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant Rhonda Montgomery to respond to his first

17

set of written discovery including interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests

18

for admission. LR 26-7(b) requires the moving party “to set forth in full the text of the discovery

19

originally sought and any response to it.” The burden is on Plaintiff to demonstrate that he is entitled

20

to relief. Agarwal v. Oregon Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:11-CV-01384-LDG, 2013 WL 211093, at *3 (D.

21

Nev. Jan. 18, 2013). Generally, it is insufficient to merely attach voluminous discovery requests and

22

responses as exhibits to satisfy the requirements of LR 26-7(b). Taylor, 2013 WL 2355462 at *4.

23

This essentially shifts the burden to the Court to sift through and root for issues that should be clear

24

on the face of a discovery motion. Id.

25

Although Plaintiff provides detailed information regarding his meet and confer efforts with

26

Defendant, he fails to set forth sufficient information or legal authority to allow the Court to make a

27

determination as to specific discovery requests. Plaintiff simply attaches all of his discovery requests

28

as exhibits. He fails to provide any arguments or legal authority as to why Defendant’s responses are

1

inadequate pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court is, therefore, unable to

2

evaluate the adequacy of Defendant’s responses on the merits. Accordingly,

3
4
5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel (ECF No. 146) is
denied.
DATED this 11th day of July, 2017.

6
7
8

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2