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
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?