Johnson v. Whirlpool Corporation

Filing 39

ORDER that 38 Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/2/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

ROBERT JOHNSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No. 2:15-cv-02425-JCM-CWH

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 38), filed on February 1,
2017. Defendant has not filed a response.
Under Local Rule 26-7(b), all motions to compel discovery must set forth in full the text of

13

the discovery originally sought and any response to it. Local Rule 26-7(c) further requires that

14

motions to compel will not be considered unless they include a declaration setting forth the details

15

and results of the meet and confer conference for each disputed discovery request.

16

Plaintiff has included a certification of a the attempts to meet and confer. However, he has

17

not provided details of the results of the conference for any of the disputed discovery requests. In

18

order to determine the nature and extent of the remaining dispute, the Court requires a description of

19

each disputed discovery request along with an explanation of the status of the dispute after the meet

20

and confer conferences.

21
22

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 38) is DENIED
without prejudice.

23
24

DATED: February 2, 2017.

25
26

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

27
28

1