Wysocki v. Dourian

Filing 25

ORDER. The Court hereby SETS a hearing on 21 the second motion for sanctions for 11:00 a.m. on 11/13/17, in Courtroom 3C. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/6/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 DALE WYSOCKI, 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 vs. 13 14 DIKRAN DOURIAN, 15 Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-00333-JAD-NJK ORDER SETTING HEARING (Docket No. 21) 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s second motion for sanctions. Docket No. 21. Plaintiff failed to file a response. Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition. Docket No. 24. 19 On September 11, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide initial disclosures pursuant to 20 Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) and respond to Defendant’s first set of written discovery requests no later than 21 September 25, 2017. Docket No. 17. In the instant motion, Defendant seeks case-dispositive sanctions 22 for numerous discovery violations committed by Plaintiff’s counsel since the Court’s order, including 23 the following: 24 • Failure to provide all documents identified in Plaintiff’s initial disclosures and referenced 25 in Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s written discovery requests. Docket No. 21 at 4; 26 see also Docket Nos. 21-1, 22-2. 27 28 • Failure to respond to Defendant’s second and third set of interrogatories. Docket No. 21 at 5. 1 • Deficient calculation and evidence of Plaintiff’s damages. Id. at 10. 2 • Failure to provide Defendant access to documents for inspection and copying pursuant 3 4 5 to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A). Id. at 4-5. Given the recurring discovery disputes between the parties, the Court hereby SETS a hearing on the second motion for sanctions for 11:00 a.m. on November 13, 2017, in Courtroom 3C. 6 “[D]iscovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” F.D.I.C. v. 7 Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). “It is regrettable that counsel for the parties and/or 8 the parties themselves have so much difficulty cooperating with discovery and the Court is often called 9 upon to spell out detailed rights and responsibilities.” Id. Counsel should seek judicial intervention only 10 as a last resort after thoroughly discussing the dispute through a meet and confer. See, e.g., F.D.I.C. v. 11 26 Flamingo, LLC, 2013 WL 2558219, *1 (D. Nev. June 10, 2013); see also Local Rules 26-7(c), IA 12 1-3 (defining meet and confer as “direct dialogue and discussion in a face-to-face meeting, telephone 13 conference, or video conference”). 14 The Court expects civility among attorneys. “Obstructive refusal to make reasonable 15 accommodation,” such as that exhibited here, “not only impairs the civility of our profession and the 16 pleasures of the practice of law, but also needlessly increases litigation expenses to clients.” Hauser v. 17 Farrell, 14 F.3d 1338, 1344 (9th Cir. 1994). Counsel are expected to attend and participate in the 18 hearing with this in mind. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: November 6, 2017 21 22 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 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?