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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?