Greene v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 33

ORDER. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 31 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' request to reopen discovery is granted solely to allow Defendants time to r espond to Plaintiff's interrogatories and supplement their responses to his requests for production of documents. Discovery is closed for all other purposes. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the reopened discovery period will commence on March 12 , 2025 and close on April 17, 2025. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' responses to interrogatories and supplementation of responses to requests for production of documents are due no later than April 16, 2025; the dispositive motion dead line is June 9, 2025; and the proposed Joint Pretrial Order is due July 9, 2025; provided, however, that if a dispositive motion is pending on that date, the due date for the proposed Joint Pretrial Order is automatically vacated and reset for 30 day s after the Court's decision on any pending dispositive motions is issued. Discovery due by 4/17/2025. Motions due by 6/9/2025. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 7/9/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 3/12/2025. (For Distribution by law library.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

Case 2:23-cv-00739-MMD-EJY

Document 33

Filed 03/12/25

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

MARSHALL C. GREENE,

5
6
7
8

Page 1 of 3

Case No. 2:23-cv-0739-MMD-EJY

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment. ECF No. 31.

11

The Motion argues judgment should be entered in favor of Plaintiff because Defendants did not

12

respond to discovery Plaintiff timely propounded. Defendants’ Response provides a detailed and

13

supported explanation of (1) why an initial and subsequent request for an extension of the due date

14

for discovery responses was requested, (2) Plaintiff’s intermittent failure to appear for scheduled

15

telephone calls to meet and confer, and (3) Plaintiff’s ultimate refusal to agree to an extension of

16

discovery. ECF No. 32.

17

Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to enter default

18

judgment when the Clerk of Court previously entered default based upon a defendant’s failure to

19

answer and defend. OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC v. Operture, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01026, 2018

20

WL 1100904, at *1 (D. Nev. February 12, 2018). Here, not only has Plaintiff not demonstrated he

21

obtained a default against any of the Defendants, but the docket reflects Defendants answered

22

Plaintiff’s Complaint and have otherwise defended this action. ECF Nos. 18, 27, 32. Further, the

23

Court generally disfavors default judgments because “cases should be decided upon their merits

24

whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, default

25

judgment is not appropriately entered against Defendants in this case.

26

There is also no basis for a finding of contempt of court or entry of any sanctions under Rule

27

37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A court may sanction a party for failing to obey a

28

discovery order and may treat the failure as contempt of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii).
1

Case 2:23-cv-00739-MMD-EJY

Document 33

Filed 03/12/25

Page 2 of 3

1

When deciding whether to grant case dispositive sanctions or default for noncompliance with

2

discovery, the Court weighs five factors including: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution

3

of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the [opposing

4

party]; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of

5

less drastic sanctions.” Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004)

6

(internal quote marks and citation omitted).

7

Here, there was no discovery order Defendants failed to obey. Indeed, Defendants worked

8

diligently to communicate with Plaintiff about reasons for requested extensions of time to respond

9

to discovery; Defendants responded to discovery during the period when extension discussions were

10

ongoing; Plaintiff failed to attend meet and confer teleconferences Defendants arranged through the

11

Nevada Department of Corrections; and Defendants’ conduct evidence no willful or bad faith

12

conduct. ECF No. 32 at 2-3. The Court further notes that the public’s interest in an expeditious

13

resolution of this litigation is not served by entering case dispositive or other sanction as Defendants

14

have not unnecessarily delayed this matter or otherwise engaged in conduct warranting such a result.

15

Id. The Court’s docket is not served by sanctions against Defendants represented by a Deputy

16

Attorney General who made genuine attempts to discuss discovery related issues with Plaintiff. In

17

sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any basis for sanctions and, thus, the Court finds no prejudice

18

arises from the refusal to grant sanctions. This case should be decided on its merits under the

19

circumstances presented, and no less drastic sanctions need be considered.

20

Defendants request discovery be reopened for purposes of allowing them time to

21

substantively respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories as well as to allow supplemental responses to

22

Requests for Production of Documents. Again, the circumstances explained by Defendants that

23

underlie this request support good cause and excusable neglect. Id. at 8-9.

24
25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default
Judgment (ECF No. 31) is DENIED.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ request to reopen discovery is granted solely

27

to allow Defendants time to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and supplement their responses to

28

his requests for production of documents. Discovery is closed for all other purposes.
2

Case 2:23-cv-00739-MMD-EJY

1
2

Document 33

Filed 03/12/25

Page 3 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the reopened discovery period will commence on March
12, 2025 and close on April 17, 2025.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ responses to interrogatories and

4

supplementation of responses to requests for production of documents are due no later than April

5

16, 2025; the dispositive motion deadline is June 9, 2025; and the proposed Joint Pretrial Order is

6

due July 9, 2025; provided, however, that if a dispositive motion is pending on that date, the due

7

date for the proposed Joint Pretrial Order is automatically vacated and reset for 30 days after the

8

Court’s decision on any pending dispositive motions is issued.

9

Dated this 12th day of March, 2025.

10
11
12

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3