Cina v. Gonzales

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00384
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

4 ERIC CINA, Case No. 3:23-CV-00384-MMD-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL 6 v. [ECF No. 24] 7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Eric Cina’s (“Cina”) motion to compel and addendum 11 to the motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 24, 25.) Defendant Marvin Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) 12 responded, (ECF No. 26), and Cina replied, (ECF No. 27). For the reasons discussed 13 below, the motion is granted. 14 I. LEGAL STANDARD 15 “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery.” Hallett 16 v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). The “scope of discovery” encompasses 17 “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional 18 to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In analyzing proportionality, the Court 19 must consider the need for the information sought based upon “the importance of the 20 issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to 21 relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of discovery in resolving the 22 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 23 benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevance is to be construed broadly to include “any 24 matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on” any 25 party's claim or defense. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) 26 (citation omitted). 27 When a party fails to provide discovery and the parties' attempts to resolve the 1 order compelling that discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). However, the party moving for an 2 order to compel discovery bears the initial burden of informing the court: (1) which 3 discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel; (2) which of the responses 4 are disputed; (3) why he believes the response is deficient; (4) why defendants’ objections 5 are not justified; and (5) why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the 6 prosecution of this action. Harris v. Kernan, No. 2:17-cv-0680-TLN-KJN-P, 2019 WL 7 4274010, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2019); see also Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646- 8 AWI-SMS-PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform the court 9 which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for each disputed 10 response, inform the court why the information sought is relevant and why defendant's 11 objections are not justified.”). 12 Thereafter, the party seeking to avoid discovery bears the burden of showing why 13 that discovery should not be permitted. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 14 (9th Cir. 1975). The party resisting discovery “‘must specifically detail the reasons why 15 each request is irrelevant’ [or otherwise objectionable,] and may not rely on boilerplate, 16 generalized, conclusory, or speculative arguments.” F.T.C. v. AMG Servs., Inc., 291 17 F.R.D. 544, 553 (D. Nev. 2013) (quoting Painters Joint Comm. v. Emp. Painters Trust 18 Health & Welfare Fund, No. 2:10-cv-1385 JCM (PAL), 2011 WL 4573349, at *5 (D. Nev. 19 2011). Arguments against discovery must be supported by specific examples and 20 articulated reasoning. U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Ent., Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 21 2006). 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 On May 14, 2025, Cina filed his motion to compel, which alleges (1) Gonzalez 24 failed to meet and confer with Cina after he sent a letter on May 1, 2025; (2) Gonzalez 25 failed to produce responses to a second set of interrogatories; and (3) Gonzalez failed to 26 produce responses to a second set of Request for Production of Documents (RFP). (ECF 27 No. 24.) On May 27, 2025, Cina filed an addendum to the motion to compel, indicating 1 does not exist. (ECF No. 25.) 2 Gonzalez filed his response to the motion to compel on May 28, 2025. (ECF No. 3 26.) In his response, Gonzalez states that a meet and confer happened on May 21, 2025 4 and the parties “were able to come to an amicable resolution regarding Cina’s Motion.” 5 (Id. at 2.) Specifically, Gonzalez states that Cina informed defense counsel of his 6 concerns regarding discovery and agreed to provide Gonzalez until June 25, 2025, to 7 respond to Cina’s second set of Interrogatories and RFPs. (Id. at 4.) Notably, Gonzalez 8 does not explain why he failed to produce responses to the second set of Interrogatories 9 or RFPs. (See id.) In his reply, Cina disputes that the parties reached an amicable 10 resolution regarding the discovery dispute. (See ECF No. 27.) 11 Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that Cina has met his initial burden of 12 informing the Court why a motion to compel is warranted. See Harris, 2019 WL 4274010, 13 at *1. The burden now shifts to Gonzalez to show why this discovery should not be 14 permitted. Gonzalez does not dispute that discovery should be permitted, but instead 15 essentially argues that an extension of time should granted. However, the parties cannot 16 unilaterally decide to extend discovery deadlines without the Court’s permission. The 17 scheduling order and discovery plan entered in this case explicitly states that responses 18 to written discovery must be served within 30 days after the request is served. (ECF No. 19 21 at 3.) The order goes on to state that if a party requires additional time to serve 20 responses, the party who requires an extension must meet and confer with the opposing 21 party to attempt to reach a stipulation regarding a new deadline and if such a stipulation 22 is reached the stipulation must be filed with the court. (Id. at 4.) Defense counsel shall 23 refrain from this type of behavior in the future or risk being sanctioned. In sum, Gonzalez 24 has not met his burden. See Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429. Accordingly, Cina’s motion to 25 compel, (ECF No. 24), is granted. Gonzalez is directed to provide the requested discovery 26 within 7 days of the date of this order. 27 /// 1| Ill. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Cina’s motion to compel, (ECF No. 24), is 3 | GRANTED. Defendants must provide the requested discovery by June 25, 2025. 4 DATED: June 18, 2025 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28