Cabebe v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

Filing 82

ORDER that the parties shall meet-and-confer on the underlying dispute in relation to the changed landscape by December 22, 2017. To the extent a dispute remains, the parties shall file, by December 29, 2017, a joint statement regarding each disco very request for which a dispute exists. ORDER that 42 Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice and 69 Motion to Supplement is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/19/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
SHARON BARNUM, et al.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
v.
13
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-02866-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 42, 69)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Docket No. 42. A response was filed

17

thereto, and a reply. Docket Nos. 59, 65. A few weeks after the reply was filed, Plaintiffs filed a motion

18

to submit supplemental authority, Docket No. 69, which spawned another response and another reply,

19

Docket Nos. 71, 74. A few weeks after that supplemental motion was fully briefed, Plaintiffs then filed

20

a motion to extend the discovery cutoff that indicates that a primary document underlying the dispute

21

at issue in the motion to compel is now in doubt. See, e.g., Docket No. 75 at 21. While Plaintiffs

22

indicate the latest dispute may impact the motion to compel, see id., they provide insufficient guidance

23

on how that may be and how the Court can rule on the motion to compel at this point given the issues

24

being raised.

25

The Court declines to sift through seven briefs that appear to touch on the dispute at issue in the

26

motion to compel (not including the forthcoming briefing on the motion to extend). At the same time,

27

the Court seeks to minimize any further delay in resolving that dispute. Accordingly, the parties shall

28

meet-and-confer on the underlying dispute in relation to the changed landscape by December 22, 2017.

1

To the extent a dispute remains, the parties shall file, by December 29, 2017, a joint statement regarding

2

each discovery request for which a dispute exists. That joint statement must separately address each

3

disputed request, providing the text of the request, the specific objections to it, Defendant’s arguments

4

supporting each objection, and then Plaintiffs’ arguments opposing each objection. Cf. C.D. Cal. Local

5

Rule 37-2.1 (outlining similar procedure for presenting discovery disputes in the form of joint

6

stipulations). Because this is a joint submission, the page limitations established in the local rules shall

7

not apply, although counsel shall be as concise as the subject matter permits.1 The joint statement must

8

be complete in itself. The parties may not incorporate by reference arguments made elsewhere. The joint

9

statement shall attach any declarations or exhibits that the parties wish to be considered.

10

As the original movants, Plaintiffs shall be responsible for compiling and filing the joint

11

statement, and the parties shall confer on the best mechanism for accomplishing that. Cf. C.D. Cal. Local

12

Rule 37-2.2. This must be a cooperative process. The Court expects counsel to be transparent with one

13

another as to their arguments, including circulating their written arguments with sufficient time to

14

respond thereto in their own section of the joint submission.

15
16

The pending motion to compel (Docket No. 42) is DENIED without prejudice and the pending
motion to supplement (Docket No. 69) is DENIED as moot.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED: December 19, 2017

19

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

To be clear, the parties must meaningfully develop their arguments. Merely identifying an
objection or response thereto will not suffice. Cf. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582
n.3 (D. Nev. 2013) (courts may deem waived arguments that are not meaningfully developed).
2