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

Filing 265

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 229 Plaintiff's Eleventh Motion to Compel is granted, in part. Defendant shall serve her supplemental responses to these discovery requests within ten (10) days of the filing of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 12/27/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

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 Eleventh Motion to Compel (ECF No. 229), filed

16

on October 26, 2017. Defendant Rhonda Montgomery filed her Opposition (ECF No. 231) on

17

November 9, 2017 and Plaintiff filed his Reply (ECF No. 234) on November 15, 2017.

18
19

BACKGROUND
On August 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed his second motion to compel (ECF No. 165) Defendant

20

Montgomery to further respond to discovery requests. The Court granted Plaintiff’s second motion to

21

compel, in part, and instructed Defendant Montgomery to supplement her responses to specific

22

discovery requests. Plaintiff argues that the supplemental responses provided by Defendant

23

Montgomery are inadequate. The Court instructed Defendant’s counsel to review Defendant’s social

24

media content and produce any relevant, nonprivileged content contained therein. The Court further

25

instructed Defendant to produce any nonprivileged documents in her possession, custody, or control

26

that contain information regarding possible cheating on the May 2013 Q-Exam. Plaintiff argues that

27

Defendant failed to properly search her social media content and failed to provide a sufficient

28

description of searches conducted as they relate to Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for Production

1

No. 1. See Plf’s Mtn. to Compel (ECF No. 229), 9-10. Defendant Montgomery argues that Plaintiff

2

failed to meaningfully meet-and-confer and that her supplemental responses satisfy the Court’s order

3

granting, in part, Plaintiff’s second motion to compel. See Opp. (ECF No. 231).

4

DISCUSSION

5

1.

6

The Court instructed Defendant to produce nonprivileged documents containing information

Request for Production No. 1.

7

regarding possible cheating on the May 2013 Q-Exam, including documents that contain

8

communications between individuals regarding the investigation or statements regarding whether

9

Plaintiff may have intended to cheat on the Q-Exam. See Order (ECF No. 198), 13. In her

10

supplemental response, Defendant stated that “[she has] nothing responsive to this request in my

11

custody or control. I know what is contained in my files and confirmed by searching my desk within

12

my office and filing cabinets.” See Mtn to Compel (ECF No. 229), Exhibit E. Defendant represents

13

that she does not have any relevant documents in her possession, custody or control and that searches

14

of her email and facebook were conducted. See Opp (ECF No. 231), 6. Based on Defendant’s

15

representations in her Opposition (ECF No. 231), it appears that she made a reasonable inquiry to

16

locate and produce responsive documents to Request for Production No. 1. Defendant is instructed to

17

supplement her response to Request for Production No. 1 to fully describe the search she conducted

18

for responsive documents as represented in her Opposition.

19

2.

20

The Court instructed Defendant to provide access to her social media accounts to her counsel

21

to allow her counsel to review the content of those accounts and produce any relevant, nonprivileged

22

content contained therein. See Order (ECF No. 198), 14. Defendant represents that her counsel

23

conducted a search of her Facebook account. It is unclear whether Defendant’s Facebook account is

24

her only social media account. Defendant is instructed to allow her counsel to access and review all

25

social media accounts that may contain information relevant to the claims of this action, including

26

social media accounts beyond Facebook. Defendant’s counsel is instructed to provide a certification

27

to Plaintiff that she reviewed all of Defendant Montgomery’s social media accounts. Accordingly,

28

...

Interrogatory No. 6.

2

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eleventh Motion to Compel (ECF No. 229) is

2

granted, in part, as discussed herein. Defendant shall serve her supplemental responses to these

3

discovery requests within ten (10) days of the filing of this order.

4

DATED this 27th day of December, 2017.

5
6
7

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

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