Walker v. Haley et al

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT #38 Motion to Compel. The components of Plaintiff's motions (#38 and #43 ) seeking an extension of time to effect service on defendants are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until December 1, 2014, to complete service on all unserved defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 10/16/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

JOHN G. WALKER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
MICHAEL HALEY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

3:13-cv-00485-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
October 16, 2014

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. # 38), wherein Plaintiff seeks to compel
Defendants to answer interrogatories Plaintiff has served in this matter. Plaintiff also seeks an
extension of time to effect service on certain defendants. (Id.) Defendants have responded,
explaining the delay behind providing Plaintiff the Defendants' answers to his interrogatories and
confirming the answers have been provided Plaintiff. (Doc. # 42.) Defendants did not address the
service issue. No reply memorandum has been filed.
I. Discovery Issue
Because it appears Defendants have responded to the discovery served by Plaintiff, the
Motion to Compel (Doc. # 38) is DENIED AS MOOT.
The court advises Plaintiff, however, that his motion could have been summarily denied at
the outset by reason of his failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 27-7(b).
As is stated in the Local Rule, "[d]iscovery motions will not be considered unless a statement of the
movant is attached thereto certifying that, after personal consultation and sincere effort to do so, the
parties have been unable to resolve the matter without Court action." Plaintiff's motion contains no
such verification. Defendants' memorandum states that had Plaintiff contacted Defendants' counsel,
he could have confirmed that the discovery responses would soon be served - and apparently were
in fact provided Plaintiff. Additionally, the Local Rules require submission of the disputed discovery
documents (L.R. 26-7(a)) and Plaintiff's motion did not contain the text of the disputed discovery.
Plaintiff is advised the court will not entertain any further discovery motions from Plaintiff unless
he demonstrates compliance with the local rules.

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:13-cv-00485-RCJ-WGC
Date: October 16, 2014
Page 2
II. Extension of Time
Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to effect service on the un-served defendants. He does
not identify which defendants are unserved but it appears to be Ross Taylor and David Evans.
Summons have been issued for each defendant and delivered to the U. S. Marshal for service (Doc.
## 41 & 45). (It appears that named Defendants Youngblood and Leonard have also possibly not
been served.)
The components of Plaintiff's motions (Docs. # 38 and # 43) seeking an extension of time
to effect service on these Defendants are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until December 1, 2014,
to complete service on all unserved defendants.
Plaintiff is further cautioned that in the future, motions involving unrelated issues (such as
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel/Motion for Extension) should be submitted as separate motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk