Andre Hardiman v. Scott Davis, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00584
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 ANDRE HARDIMAN, Case No. 3:23-CV-00584-MMD-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING STRIKING DISCOVERY ON THE DOCKET 6 v. [ECF No. 48] 7 SCOTT DAVIS, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff Andre Hardiman (“Hardiman”) filed a document titled 11 “Objection to Kara LeGrand’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set Two.” (ECF No. 12 48.) This document contains Hardiman’s “objections” to Defendant Kara LeGrand’s 13 (“LeGrand”) answers to Hardiman’s interrogatory requests. (Id.) This document is 14 improper for multiple reasons and is therefore stricken from the docket. 15 First, in its current form, this document constitutes discovery improperly filed on 16 the docket. Pursuant to the Local Rules, unless the Court orders otherwise, discovery 17 documents may not be filed on the docket. LR IC 1-1(c)(12). The Court may strike 18 documents that do not comply with the Local Rules. LR IC 7-1. Consequently, the Court 19 strikes Hardiman’s objections to LeGrand’s interrogatory answers. 20 Further, Hardiman may not simply file “objections” to interrogatory answers on the 21 docket. To the extent Hardiman has issues with LeGrand’s interrogatory responses, he 22 must first meet and confer with opposing counsel before filing a properly supported 23 discovery motion. Discovery motions will not be considered unless the movant (1) has 24 made a good-faith effort to meet and confer as defined in LR IA 1-3(f) before filing the 25 motion, and (2) includes a declaration setting forth the details and results of the meet- 26 and-confer conference about each disputed discovery request. LR 26-6(c). 27 The Court reminds Hardiman that “[t]he discovery process in theory should be 1| 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018). While the Court understands that Hardiman is 2| proceeding pro se, pro se litigants are still required to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil 3) Procedure, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court's Local Rules. King v. 4| Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds 5 | by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). Although the Court will liberally 6 | construe pro se pleadings and will give some latitude to pro se litigants, a continued failure 7 | to follow the Court's Local Rules and the Rules of Civil Procedure may result in sanctions. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Hardiman’s objections to □□□□□□□□□ interrogatory answers, (ECF No. 48), is hereby STRICKEN. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED: October 6, 2025. .

12 UNITED STAT AGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28