Cochran v. Walmart, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ELIZABETH COCHRAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00868-JAD-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), y. Order [Docket No. 22] 8 WALMART INC., 9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is a motion to compel discovery. Docket No. 22. 11 “Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” FL.D.C. v. 12|| Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). Counsel must strive to be cooperative, practical, 13] and sensible, and should seek judicial intervention “only in extraordinary situations that implicate 14] truly significant interests.” Jn re Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D. 15] Cal. 1985). To that end, discovery motions may be filed only after a robust conferral process, 16] which requires personal consultation in the form of in-person, telephonic, or video discussions. See Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015); see also Local 18] Rule IA 1-3(f). The fact that a party seeks emergency relief does not obviate the requirement to 19] confer. “To the contrary, a good faith and thorough attempt to resolve the dispute without Court 20] intervention is even more critical when time is of the essence.” Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1142. 21 A conference did not take place here. Docket No. 22 at 5. 22 Accordingly, the motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice. Defense counsel must 23] promptly make themselves available for an in-person, telephonic, or video conferral. Any renewed 24|| motion to compel must be filed by March 27, 2024. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: March 18, 2024

28 Unite Stage bp istrate Judge