Alexander v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al

Filing 66

ORDER Denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 58 and 59 Motions to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

BOBBY ALEXANDER,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
)
LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00139-APG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 58, 59)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Docket No. 58; see also Docket No.

17

59 (sealed version). Defendant filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket Nos.

18

62, 64. For the first time in reply, Plaintiff discusses a hearing from August 10, 2017, at which United

19

States Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen resolved a discovery motion that appears to involve similar

20

issues to those presented in the motion to compel pending in this case. See Docket No. 64 at 2. In

21

particular, Judge Leen found that portions of the disputed documents must be produced and that they

22

would be protected through an “attorney’s eyes only” provision added to the stipulated protective order.

23

See Dunlap v. Wells Fargo Financial, Case No. 2:17-cv-00097-RFB-PAL, Docket No. 40 (D. Nev. Aug.

24

16, 2017) (transcript of hearing). The Court is inclined to follow a similar course here. Nonetheless,

25

the Court will not definitively resolve the pending motion to compel because the discussion of Judge

26

Leen’s decision is provided only in the reply brief. See Bazuaye v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir.

27

1996).

28

1

Instead, the Court orders the parties to conduct a further meet-and-confer to fully take into

2

account the guidance already provided by Judge Leen. Given the circumstances, the Court expects that

3

this discovery dispute will be resolved through a fulsome meet-and-confer rather than through further

4

motion practice. Cf. Ashcraft v. Welk Resort Grp., 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 65980, *2-3 (D. Nev. May 1,

5

2017) (reminding counsel of the requirement to conduct pre-filing conferences with an eye toward

6

common sense cooperation).1

7

Accordingly, the pending motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: September 1, 2017

10

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

There appears to have been an attempt to conduct a further meet-and-confer after Judge Leen made
her ruling, but it appears that it may have never actually culminated in a meet-and-confer that included
personal consultation. See Docket No. 64 at 2-3 (“Experian’s response to Bobby’s overture was to file its
response to his motion the next day, without any discussion beforehand”). Regardless, however, this appears
to be a dispute that counsel can and should resolve themselves.
2