Cave v. JPM Chase Bank Investments Division et al

Filing 34

ORDER that 27 Plaintiff's Petition to Compel Production of Answers toInterrogatories is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 12/2/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
JPM CHASE BANK INVESTMENTS
)
)
DIVISION, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
CHRIS HAROLD CAVE,

Case No. 2:16-cv-01806-RFB-GWF
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Petition to Compel Production of Answers to

14

Interrogatories (ECF No. 27), filed on October 18, 2016. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

15

(“JPMorgan”) filed its Opposition (ECF No. 32) on November 4, 2016.

16

Although Courts broadly construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants, even pro se litigants must

17

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d

18

696, 699 (9th Cir.1990); see also Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir.

19

1986). Pro se litigants are not treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record and are

20

expected to abide by the rules of the court in which litigation proceeds. Carter, 784 F.2d at 1008.

21

Pleadings by pro se litigants, regardless of deficiencies, should only be judged by function, not form.

22

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972).

23

Even broadly construed, Plaintiff’s motion fails procedurally and is not coherent. First,

24

Plaintiff has not shown that he served written discovery upon Defendant JPMorgan. Second, the meet

25

and confer requirements in Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule

26

(“LR”) 26-7(b) require the moving party to confer or attempt to confer in person, or at least by

27

telephone, with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute prior to filing a

28

motion to compel. Shuffle Master v. Progressive Games, 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D.Nev. 1996).

1
2

Plaintiff failed to show that he complied with these requirements prior to filing his motion.
The Court granted Defendant JPMorgan’s Motion to Stay discovery pending a ruling on its

3

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) on October 12, 2016. Plaintiff’s Petition to Compel the Production of

4

Answers to Interrogatories is therefore moot. Based on these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s

5

Petition to Compel Production of Answers to Interrogatories. Accordingly,

6
7
8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition to Compel Production of Answers to
Interrogatories (ECF No. 27) is denied.
DATED this 2nd day of December, 2016.

9
10
11

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2