Wilk v. Neven et al

Filing 79

ORDER Denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 65 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/8/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

ROBERT WILK,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DWIGHT NEVEN,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
_______________________________________ )

10
11

Case No. 2:15-cv-01429-JCM-CWH

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Wilk’s motion to compel (ECF No. 65), filed on
May 16, 2017. Defendant has not filed a response.

12

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendant to respond to his discovery requests. Plaintiff

13

provides an attachment which consists of thirty pages of Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s

14

interrogatories and requests for admission. Upon review, it appears that Defendant has responded to

15

each of Plaintiff’s inquiries, although some responses are merely objections. However, Plaintiff

16

generally asserts that the responses are inadequate and that Defendant is “evading answering and

17

causing delay.” Mot. at 1.

18

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(i), a party seeking discovery may move

19

for an order to compel disclosure or discovery if the opposing party fails to provide required

20

disclosures. However, Plaintiff has provided no explanation as to why any of Defendant’s responses

21

are inadequate. It is not clear if Plaintiff believes that any of the responses are adequate or that none

22

are. Without further explanation or support, the Court cannot rely on Plaintiff’s conclusory

23

statement that Defendant’s are “evading answering and causing delay.” The Court will therefore

24

deny the motion without prejudice. If he so chooses, and only after a good faith effort to meet and

25

confer with Defendant, Plaintiff may refile this motion with an explanation for each disputed

26

discovery request why he believes the given response is inadequate.

27

//

28
1

1
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 65) is DENIED
without prejudice.

3
4

DATED: June 8, 2017.

5
6

_________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2