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)

Download PDF
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

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?