Westwood v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

Filing 45

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 40 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 8/9/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 GIOVANNA WESTWOOD, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:16-cv-02409-RFB-GWF ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 40), filed on July 13, 2017. Defendant filed its Response (ECF No. 41) on July 27, 2017. 15 Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for 16 admission, requests for production, and interrogatories. Plaintiff has filed her instant motion 17 without an attempt to resolve these issues with Defendant’s counsel. The meet and confer 18 requirements in Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule (“LR”) 26- 19 7(b) require the moving party to confer or attempt to confer in person, or at least by telephone, with 20 the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute prior to filing a motion to 21 compel. Shuffle Master v. Progressive Games, 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D.Nev. 1996); Walker v. 22 North Las Vegas Police Depart., 2016 WL 427063, *2 (D.Nev. Feb. 3, 2016). The moving party is 23 also required to include a certification setting forth his or her efforts and the results of the meet and 24 confer attempts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); LR 26-7( c). The court should not consider a motion to 25 compel unless the moving party provides a certification which “accurately and specifically conveys 26 to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties attempted to personally resolve the 27 discovery dispute.” Shufflemaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F .R.D. 166, 170 28 (D.Nev.1996). 1 In addition to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the meet and confer requirements, her 2 motion to compel lacks merit because she failed to make a threshold showing of relevancy or that 3 the requested information falls within the scope of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Guzman v. 4 Lincoln Tech. Inst., Inc., 2015 WL 1729711, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2015) (citing Hofer v. Mack 5 Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir.1992)). Plaintiff’s discovery requests are based on her 6 belief that she tendered payment to Defendant via a fraudulent money order. Her discovery requests 7 are based on her underlying claims and allegations that the Court finds to be frivolous and lacking in 8 legal basis or authority. Accordingly, 9 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 40) is denied. DATED this 9th day of August, 2017. 11 12 13 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 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?