Davis v. Pickens

Filing 55

ORDER denying 54 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 3/6/2025. (For Distribution by law library.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

TERRANCE DAVIS,

5

Plaintiff,

6

v.

7

PICKENS, et al.,

8
9
10

Case No. 3:24-CV-00119-ART-CLB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
[ECF No. 54]

Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Terrance Davis’s (“Davis”) motion to compel. (ECF
Nos. 54.) For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied, with leave to refile.

11

Prior to filing a discovery motion, the parties must first undertake a good faith effort

12

to resolve any dispute among the parties. A discovery motion will not be considered

13

unless the movant has made a good-faith effort to meet and confer with the opposing

14

party before filing the motion. To comply with the meet and confer requirement, an

15

incarcerated party is required to send a written communication to opposing counsel or

16

party explaining, with specificity, the discovery dispute and a request to hold a telephonic

17

meet and confer session. (See ECF No. 43 at 4-5.)

18

If the meet and confer efforts are unsuccessful, the party seeking to compel

19

discovery, or a protective order, may file a discovery motion. The motion must include the

20

following: (1) a declaration providing the details and results of the meet-and-confer

21

conference about each disputed discovery request; and (2) the full text of each discovery

22

request and disputed response at issue. (Id.)

23

Davis’s motion is improper for several reasons. As discussed above, discovery

24

motions will not be considered if a meet and confer has not taken place prior to a

25

discovery motion being filed. Here, it is unclear if the parties met and conferred prior to

26

the filing of the motion, as Davis does not include a declaration providing the details and

27

results of the meet-and-confer conference. Additionally, while Davis asserts that

28

Defendants have failed to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of

1

documents, he does not provide the full text of each discovery request and the disputed

2

response at issue. Therefore, the Court cannot discern what specific discovery Davis

3

seeks to compel.

4

Accordingly, Davis’s motion to compel, (ECF No. 54), is DENIED, with leave to

5

refile. If Davis chooses to refile his motion to compel, he is advised that he must comply

6

with all the requirements set forth above.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: March 6, 2025

9
10

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2