Castellanos v. City of Reno

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 CATHERINE CASTELLANOS, et al., 3:19-cv-00693-MMD-CLB

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

CITY OF RENO, et al., 8

Defendants. 9

10 This case involves a constitutional challenge of a city ordinance brought by 11 Catherine Castellanos (“Castellanos”), Lauren Courtney (“Courtney”), Rachel Jasper 12 (“Jasper”), Brianna Morales (“Morales”), Victoria Rachet (“Rachet”), Lily Stagner 13 (“Stagner”), Natalee Wells (“Wells”), Cecelia Whittle (“Whittle”), and Maryann Rose 14 Brooks (“Brooks”) (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) against the City of Reno and 15 Michael Chaump (collectively referred to as “Defendants” or “City”). Currently pending 16 before the court is Defendants’ motion to compel discovery and to deem requests for 17 admission admitted. (ECF No. 32; 33). Plaintiffs responded (ECF No. 35) and Defendants 18 replied (ECF No. 37). 19 I. Factual Background and Procedural History 20 Plaintiffs are Adult Interactive Cabaret Performers1 aged 18 to 21 who currently 21 work in the City of Reno. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs allege that Reno Municipal Code (RMC) 22 Chapters 4 and 5 were enacted in violation of NRS 237.080 and discriminate against 23 female dancers in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 5, 9). The Performers 24 also allege that RMC 5.06.080 violates the First Amendment and discriminates on the 25 basis of age in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 18). In addition to the 26 Plaintiffs’ individual suit, the complaint seeks to bring a claim on behalf of all similarly 27 1 situated Adult Interactive Cabaret performers currently working in Reno. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 2 97). The complaint seeks a certification of three separate classes: (1) all dancers age 18 3 to 21, (2) all female dancers, and (3) all patrons age 18 to 21. (Id. at ¶ 97(A)-(C)). After 4 the parties stipulated to a discovery plan (ECF No. 23) and a protective order (ECF No. 5 21), the case proceeded to discovery. 6 A. Motion to Compel and Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted 7 On March 9, 2020, the City served Plaintiffs with written discovery requests. (ECF 8 No. 32 at 2). Plaintiffs Castellanos, Courtney, Jasper, Rachet, Stagner, and Brooks 9 replied, while Plaintiffs Morales, Wells, and Whittle did not. (ECF No. 37 at 2). The written 10 discovery requests include Interrogatories (ECF No. 32-1; 32-4; 32-7), requests for 11 document production (ECF No. 32-2; 32-5; 32-8) and requests for admissions (ECF No. 12 32-3; 32-6; 32-9). On June 15, 2020 Defense counsel sent a letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel 13 stating that the City has not received a response to their discovery requests for these 14 three plaintiffs. (ECF No. 32-10 at 4). Plaintiffs did not respond. Then, on June 30, 2020, 15 Defense counsel sent an email to Plaintiffs’ Counsel requesting a phone call to further 16 discuss the discovery responses received and outstanding, in an effort to meet and 17 confer. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff’s Counsel again did not respond. On July 8, 2020, Defense 18 counsel sent a second email requesting a phone call with Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Id. at 8). 19 Plaintiffs’ counsel finally spoke with Defense counsel on July 22, 2020. During this 20 discussion, Defense counsel stated their intent to file a motion to compel if Plaintiffs 21 Morales, Wells and Whittle failed to respond to the outstanding discovery requests by 22 August 2, 2020. (Id. at 11). Plaintiffs failed to respond by the August 2, 2020 deadline 23 and Defendants filed the motions that are the subject of this order. 24 II. Discussion 25 A. Motion to Compel 26 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a party to “move for an order 27 compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection,” if: “(i) a deponent fails to 1 fails to answer an interrogatory under Rule 33, or (iv) a party fails to produce documents 2 . . . requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(A)-(B). The motion to compel must 3 include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer 4 with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it 5 without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The federal rules “provide that discovery 6 requests must be responded to within 30 (or in some cases 45) days.” Richmark Corp. 7 v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “[i]t is 8 well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required 9 constitutes a waiver of any objection.” Id. 10 Plaintiffs Morales, Wells, Whittle and their counsel completely failed to respond to 11 the March 9 discovery. (ECF No. 32). In their response to the motion to compel Plaintiffs’ 12 counsel did not oppose the motion. Rather, as defense counsel points out, Plaintiffs’ 13 counsel simply makes a veiled attempt at withdraw as counsel for these Plaintiffs.2 (ECF 14 No. 35). Plaintiffs have not responded to the Defendants’ March 9 discovery within the 15 time permitted by the rules and consequently have waived all objections. See Richmark, 16 959 F.2d at 1473. In fact, Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the discovery requests made 17 months ago and their failure to come forth with any justification for the delay borderlines 18 bad faith conduct inconsistent with the rules governing civil discovery. Thus, due to 19 Plaintiffs’ blatant disregard to the rules and spirit of civil discovery, the court grants the 20 defendants motion to compel. 21 B. Motion to Deem Requests Admitted 22 Under Rule 36(a) a matter is deemed admitted “unless, within 30 days after 23 service of the request . . . the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party 24 requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed 25

26 2 This is improper. First, the court agrees that counsel may not abandon his client on the courthouse steps by urging the court to dismiss these plaintiffs without prejudice. 27 (See ECF No. 35). If Plaintiffs’ counsel wishes to withdraw, he must do so by filing a 1 || by the party or by the party's attorney.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). “Once admitted, the matter 2 || ‘is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment 3 || of the admission’ pursuant to Rule 36(b).” Conlon v. United states, 474 F.3d 616, 621 4 || (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b)). Plaintiffs Morales, Wells and Whittle have 5 || failed to respond in any manner to Defendants’ March 9 request for admissions. (ECF 6 || No. 37 at 2). Therefore, Defendants’ motion to deem requests for admission admitted is 7 || also granted. 8 lll. Conclusion 9 Consistent with the discussion above, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to 10 || Compel (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED; 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Morales, Wells and Whittle must 12 || respond to the discovery request within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this order; 13 || and 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Deem Requests for 15 || Admission Admitted (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED. 16 17 DATED: October 8, 2020 . 18 .

19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28