Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Belsky et al

Filing 311

ORDER that defendants' Motion for a Protective Order (ECF No. 310 ) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/22/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

6

ORDER

v.

7
8

Case No. 2:15-cv-02265-MMD-CWH

MAJORIE BELSKY, MD, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

This matter is before the court on defendants Majorie Belsky, MD, Mario Tarquino, MD,

11
12

Majorie Belsky, MD, Inc. d/b/a, Integrated Pain Specialists, and Mario Tarquino, MD, Inc.’s

13

Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 310), filed on May 15, 2018.
Defendants move for a protective order related to the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions in this

14
15

case. Under Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for a protective

16

order must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to

17

confer with the other party to resolve the dispute without court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).

18

Additionally, Local Rule 26-7(c) provides that:

19

discovery motions will not be considered unless the movant (1) has made a good
faith effort to meet and confer as defined in LR IA 1-3(f) before filing the motion,
and (2) includes a declaration setting forth the details and results of the meet-andconfer conference about each disputed discovery request.

20
21
22

Defendants’ attorney’s declaration does not provide an account of direct dialogue

23

or in-person attempts to meet and confer about any request for advance notice of specific

24

patient charts. Rather, defense counsel includes attached exhibits of email exchanges

25

between him and opposing counsel. See LR IA 1-3(f) (defining “meet and confer” as a

26

“face-to-face meeting, telephonic conference, or video conference.”). The court therefore

27

will deny the motion for failure to comply with Rule 26(c)(1) and Local Rule 26-7(c).

28

///

1
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order (ECF
No. 310) is DENIED.

3
4

DATED: May 22, 2018

5
6
7

C.W. HOFFMAN, 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
Page 2 of 2