Robinson v. Dungarvin Nevada, LLC

Filing 50

ORDER denying 48 Motion to Compel. Defendant shall have until July 21, 2017, to serve plaintiff with responses to his requests for production, and answers to interrogatories. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/3/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JAMES E. ROBINSON,

8
9
10

v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00902-JAD-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER

DUNGARVIN NEVADA, LLC,

(Mot Compel – ECF No. 48)
Defendant.

11
12

Before the court is Plaintiff James E. Robinson’s Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF

13

No. 48). The court has reviewed the motion, and Defendant Dungarvin Nevada, LLC’s untimely

14

Response (ECF No. 49).

15

Defendant opposes the motion because Robinson filed it without first engaging in a meet

16

and confer process as required by Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a)(1) and Local Rule IA 1-3(f). Defendant

17

also argues plaintiff’s discovery requests do not comply with the Federal Rules, and that defense

18

counsel has pointed this out to Robinson several times. Defense counsel has requested a meet and

19

confer because plaintiff filed his discovery requests with the court. Finally, defendant claims it has

20

produced all relevant documents in its possession and plaintiff has not explained what documents

21

he expects defendant to produce.

22

This is an employment discrimination claim. Plaintiff is representing himself. A review

23

of the docket reflects that plaintiff filed what were docketed as a Notice of Production of

24

Documents (ECF No. 33) and Notice of Discovery (ECF No. 34) on February 7, 2017. Defense

25

counsel is correct that discovery requests must be served on opposing counsel rather than filed

26

with the court. See LR26-8. However, the docket reflects that defense counsel was served with

27

the discovery requests by the clerk of court. The requests for production ask for eight categories

28

of documents. Plaintiff has also requested answers to ten interrogatories directed to Charlotte
1

1

McClanahan and five interrogatories directed to Barbra Jordon. Judge Dorsey dismissed the

2

claims against these individuals in a written order (ECF No. 40) entered March 31, 2017, because

3

Title VII and the ADEA does not allow suits against individuals.

4

The discovery cutoff is August 8, 2017. Because defense counsel was served with

5

plaintiff’s discovery requests, and because it is clear that the interrogatories are intended to obtain

6

discovery about plaintiff’s claims from employees of the defendant employer, the court will direct

7

the defendant to serve responses to the document requests (ECF No. 33) and answers to plaintiff’s

8

interrogatories (ECF No. 34). The court will construe the interrogatories as directed to the

9

defendant employer. Although a number of plaintiff’s interrogatories are not artfully phrased, the

10

court expects the defendant to provide substantive answers to the best of its ability.

11

IT IS ORDERED:

12

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 48) is DENIED without prejudice.

13

2. Defendant shall have until July 21, 2017, to serve plaintiff with responses to his

14
15

requests for production, and answers to interrogatories.
DATED this 3rd day of July, 2017.

16
17
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2