Weddle v. Baker et al

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT # 38 Motion to compel. The court finds there is no basis for an imposition of sanctions and this component of Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion having been resolved herein, the court VACATES the status conference scheduled for June 30, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. . Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 6/25/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

RICHARD WEDDLE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________)

3:14-cv-00241-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
June 25, 2015

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 May 8, 2015 “Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure or
Discovery; Sanctions.” (Doc. # 38.) Defendants have responded. (Doc. # 47.) No reply
memorandum was filed.
Plaintiff seeks the court to issue an order to Defendants to cooperate in discovery or to
impose sanctions. (Doc. # 38 at 1.) Plaintiff states he mailed his last discovery to Defendants on
March 26, 2015. (Id., at 1-2.) On May 1, 2015, not having received any responses, Plaintiff wrote
to counsel for defendants “requesting cooperation in discovery.” This, he states, is his “good faith
conferred or attempted to confer...in an effort to obtain [discovery] without court action.” (Id., at 2.)
Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s May 1, 2015 letter (Exhibit A, Doc.# 47-1) was received
on May 6, 2015, and that the very next day defense counsel arranged a telephone conference with
Plaintiff for May 12, 2015, to discuss Plaintiff’s correspondence and Defendants’ discovery
responses. During the May 12, 2015 telephone conference, counsel for Defendants informed Plaintiff
of a calendaring error and assured him they were diligently working to provide him his discovery
requests. (Doc. # 47 at 2.)
///
///

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:14-cv-00241-MMD-WGC
Date: June 25, 2015
Page 2
Defendants’ response asserts that Plaintiff’s motion is now moot as Defendants have
responded to each of Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id.) Defendants have attached as Exhibit B the
various discovery responses of Defendants Stogner, Deal, Sandoval, Youngblood, Baker and Moore
to their response. (Doc. # 47-2.)
As stated above, Plaintiff did not reply to the Defendants’ response. The court assumes
Plaintiff has received the discovery Defendants reference. Therefore, the component of Plaintiff’s
motion which seeks an order compelling the Defendants to respond to his discovery is moot.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. # 38) is DENIED AS MOOT. The court finds there is
no basis for an imposition of sanctions and this component of Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s motion having been resolved herein, the court VACATES the status conference
scheduled for June 30, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk