Alexander v. Chadwick

Filing 68

ORDER Denying without prejudice 67 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/29/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6

MICHAEL ALEXANDER,

7

Plaintiff(s),
Order

8

v.

9

COREY CHADWICK,

10

Case No. 2:22-cv-01084-CDS-NJK

[Docket No. 67]
Defendant(s).

11

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. Docket No. 81.

12

“Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” F.D.I.C. v.

13 Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). Counsel must strive to be cooperative, practical,
14 and sensible, and should seek judicial intervention “only in extraordinary situations that implicate
15 truly significant interests.” In re Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D.
16 Cal. 1985). To that end, discovery motions may be filed only after a robust conferral process,
17 which requires personal consultation in the form of in-person, telephonic, or video discussions.
18 See Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015); see also Local
19 Rule IA 1-3(f).
20

The motion practice was preceded by “emails [Plaintiff’s counsel] ha[s] sent to Mr.

21 Leonard on multiple occasions since the litigation started.” Docket No. 67 at 16. As the case law
22 and the rules make clear, however, “[t]he exchange of written, electronic, or voice-mail
23 communications does not satisfy” the meet-and-confer requirement. Local Rule 1-3(f).
24 Accordingly, the motion to compel discovery is DENIED without prejudice.
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: August 29, 2024

27

______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

28
1