Dryden v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 77 Motion to Compel; ORDER denying 78 Motion to Compel; Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/9/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BRYAN DRYDEN,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:16-cv-01227-JAD-GWF
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of Documents (ECF

13

No. 77), filed on April 30, 2019. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Production of

14

Documents (ECF No. 78), filed on May 6, 2019.

15

Plaintiff’s filings appear to be his initial requests for production of documents to

16

Defendants which are governed by Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff

17

should serve such requests upon Defendants. Plaintiff does not file his discovery requests with the

18

Court. Rule 34(b)(2) provides that “the party to whom the request is directed must respond in

19

writing within 30 days after being served. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). A motion for an order

20

compelling disclosure or discovery is governed by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

21

and provides that “the motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith

22

conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure in an effort to

23

obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Plaintiff may file with the Court a motion

24

to compel pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after Defendant has failed

25

to respond to his requests, objected to his requests, or if its responses are inadequate. Before filing

26

a motion to compel Plaintiff must meet and confer with the responsive party to attempt to resolve

27

the dispute pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule (“LR”) IA

28

1-3(f) and LR 26-7. Accordingly,
1

1
2
3
4
5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of Documents (ECF
No. 77) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (ECF
No. 78) is denied.
Dated this 9th day of May, 2019.

6
7
GEORGE FOLEY, 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
2