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)

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