Marshall v. The CBE Group, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER that 14 Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/3/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
GRETTA MARSHALL,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
THE CBE GROUP, INC.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-02406-GMN-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL
(Docket No. 14)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Docket No. 14. For the reasons
discussed more fully below, the motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

18

“Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” F.D.I.C. v. Butcher,

19

116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). Counsel should strive to be cooperative, practical and sensible,

20

and should seek judicial intervention “only in extraordinary situations that implicate truly significant

21

interests.” In re Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D. Cal. 1985). A threshold

22

issue in the review of any motion to compel is whether the movant made adequate efforts to resolve the

23

dispute without court intervention. Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D.

24

Nev. 2015). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires that the party bringing a motion to

25

compel discovery must “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted

26

to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without

27

court action.” The Local Rules further expound on this requirement, providing that discovery motions

28

will not be considered “unless the movant (1) has made a good faith effort to meet and confer . . . before

1

filing the motion, and (2) includes a declaration setting forth the details and results of the meet-and-

2

confer conference about each disputed discovery request.” Local Rule 26-7(c).

3

Judges in this District have held that “personal consultation” means the movant must “personally

4

engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully discuss each contested

5

discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.” ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive

6

Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996). The consultation obligation “promote[s] a frank

7

exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow and focus matters in

8

controversy before judicial resolution is sought.” Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120

9

(D.Nev.1993). To meet this obligation, parties must “treat the informal negotiation process as a

10

substitute for, and not simply a formalistic prerequisite to, judicial resolution of discovery disputes.”

11

Id. This is done when the parties “present to each other the merits of their respective positions with the

12

same candor, specificity, and support during the informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery

13

motions.” Id. To ensure that parties comply with these requirements, movants must file certifications

14

that “accurately and specifically convey to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties

15

attempted to personally resolve the discovery dispute.” ShuffleMaster, 170 F.R.D. at 170.1 Courts may

16

look beyond the certification made to determine whether a sufficient meet-and-confer actually took

17

place. See, e.g., Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1145.

18

The pending motion is supported by a certification that counsel conferred on multiple occasions

19

regarding the underlying disputes. See Docket No. 14-1 at ¶ 4. In particular, the certification identifies

20

various written correspondences sent to Defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 14-17. The certification does not identify

21

any personal consultation, however, and it appears instead that counsel chose to forego that personal

22

consultation. See Docket No. 14-14. As such, the motion to compel is not properly before the Court.

23

See, e.g., Local Rule IA 1-3(f) (meet-and-confer requirements “may only be satisfied through direct

24

dialogue and discussion in a face-to-face meeting, telephone conference, or video conference. The

25

exchange of written, electronic, or voice-mail communications does not satisfy this requirement”).

26
27
28

1

These requirements are now largely codified in the Court’s local rules that became effective in
2016. See Local Rule 26-7(c), Local Rule IA 1-3(f).
2

1

For the reasons discussed more fully above, the motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED: April 3, 2017

4
5

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3