1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Jessica Coleman, 2:24-cv-00930-APG-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 5 vs. 6 Robert Telles, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court is defendant/counterclaimant Telles’s (“Telles”) Motion to Compel 9 (ECF No. 85). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Motion to Compel. 10 DISCUSSION 11 I. BACKGROUND 12 This is a case arising from alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13 2000e et seq., Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and related Nevada state laws. In sum, 14 plaintiffs allege sex discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, hostile work 15 environment, and retaliation. 16 On April 2, 2025, the district judge entered an order granting plaintiffs/counter-defendants’ 17 voluntary dismissal with prejudice against Telles. See ECF No. 69. Plaintiffs’ claims against Clark 18 County remained. Id. Telles’s counterclaims against counter-defendants also remained. Id. 19 Counterclaimant Telles has filed a Motion to Compel (ECF No. 85) seeking to compel responses 20 to his Interrogatories. Plaintiffs/counter-defendants oppose. See ECF No. 88. 21 II. MOTION TO COMPEL 22 A. Legal Standard 23 Discovery is governed by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads in 24 relevant part that:
25 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 1 relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 2 amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 3 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 4 outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). 6 Rule 33 states that “[a]n interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under 7 Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be 8 answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). Where a party fails to 9 answer an interrogatory under Rule 33, the requesting party may move to compel discovery. Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 37(a). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 11 satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the
12 burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining or 13 supporting its objections.” Reflex Media Inc. v. Does, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243662, at *4, 2022 WL 14 20328162, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 25, 2022) (citing Garces v. Pickett, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49438, 2021 15 WL 978540, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2021)) (citations omitted). The opposing party is “required to 16 carry a heavy burden of showing why discovery was denied.” Id. (citation omitted). The opposing party 17 must show that the discovery request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, or disproportional 18 in light of the issues at stake. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 19 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 472–73 (9th Cir.1992). The opposing party must specifically detail the reason why 20 the request is improper. Beckman Indust., 966 F.2d at 476 (“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 21 by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.”). 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 1 B. STANDING ORDER 2 The Court finds that parties have failed to comply with the Court’s 8/28/2024 Standing Order (ECF 3 No. 30) (updated June 2025). The Standing Order provides that:
4 B. Discovery Disputes Pursuant to LR 1-1(b)(2), Judge Couvillier requires the parties to follow the procedures 5 outlined below regarding any discovery dispute. No discovery motion may be filed until the following procedure has been followed and such motion is ordered by Judge 6 Couvillier: 7 1. If a discovery dispute arises the parties must first meet and confer to try to resolve their dispute in compliance with LR IA 1-3(f). Lead counsel for each 8 party shall meet and confer in person, videoconference, or telephone. A mere exchange of letters or e-mails does not satisfy the meet and confer requirement. 9 2. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute informally after a good-faith effort, the parties must file a single document captioned “Stipulation Regarding 10 Discovery Dispute” that addresses each one of the following items: i. A brief, joint summary of the discovery dispute not to exceed one (1) 11 page; ii. A restatement of the full text of the discovery requests, or deposition 12 question, in dispute as originally stated and the responses to the requests. 13 This may be done in single-spaced, 10-font. iii. A joint summary of the meet-and-confer efforts as required by LR IA 14 1-3(f), which includes: (1) a summary of discussions; (2) identification of time, place, manner, and participants; and (3) certification from counsel 15 that, despite a sincere effort, the parties were unable to resolve or narrow the dispute without court intervention. This joint meet- and-confer 16 summary may not exceed two (2) pages. iv. An explanation, without boilerplate language, of the position taken by 17 each side, not to exceed two (2) pages per side. v. Each side must make a proposal of compromise or resolution of the 18 disputed discovery (e.g., request, interrogatory, deposition question). The proposal may not exceed two (2) pages per side. 19 3. Upon review of the filed “Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute,” Judge 20 Couvillier may set a telephonic conference, order written briefing, or enter an order deciding the dispute without conference or briefing. 21 4. If an adverse party or counsel is not responsive or fails to cooperate in this process, a party may file a unilateral “Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute - 22 Filed Unilaterally in Compliance with Standing Order,” and set forth in detail efforts to meet and confer and obtain cooperation. 23 Standing Order, ECF No. 30 (updated June 2025). 24
25 1 The Court previously directed parties to comply with the Standing Order (see ECF No. 74). 2 Therefore, the parties are not strangers to this Court’s requirements. While the Court understands that 3 defendat/counterclaimant Telles is proceeding pro so, even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal 4 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the court in which litigation is proceeding. E.g. King v. 5 Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 6 1986) ("pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorable than parties with 7 attorneys of record"); Carter v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Jessica Coleman, 2:24-cv-00930-APG-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 5 vs. 6 Robert Telles, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court is defendant/counterclaimant Telles’s (“Telles”) Motion to Compel 9 (ECF No. 85). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Motion to Compel. 10 DISCUSSION 11 I. BACKGROUND 12 This is a case arising from alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13 2000e et seq., Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and related Nevada state laws. In sum, 14 plaintiffs allege sex discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, hostile work 15 environment, and retaliation. 16 On April 2, 2025, the district judge entered an order granting plaintiffs/counter-defendants’ 17 voluntary dismissal with prejudice against Telles. See ECF No. 69. Plaintiffs’ claims against Clark 18 County remained. Id. Telles’s counterclaims against counter-defendants also remained. Id. 19 Counterclaimant Telles has filed a Motion to Compel (ECF No. 85) seeking to compel responses 20 to his Interrogatories. Plaintiffs/counter-defendants oppose. See ECF No. 88. 21 II. MOTION TO COMPEL 22 A. Legal Standard 23 Discovery is governed by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads in 24 relevant part that:
25 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 1 relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 2 amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 3 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 4 outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). 6 Rule 33 states that “[a]n interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under 7 Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be 8 answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). Where a party fails to 9 answer an interrogatory under Rule 33, the requesting party may move to compel discovery. Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 37(a). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 11 satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the
12 burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining or 13 supporting its objections.” Reflex Media Inc. v. Does, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243662, at *4, 2022 WL 14 20328162, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 25, 2022) (citing Garces v. Pickett, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49438, 2021 15 WL 978540, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2021)) (citations omitted). The opposing party is “required to 16 carry a heavy burden of showing why discovery was denied.” Id. (citation omitted). The opposing party 17 must show that the discovery request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, or disproportional 18 in light of the issues at stake. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 19 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 472–73 (9th Cir.1992). The opposing party must specifically detail the reason why 20 the request is improper. Beckman Indust., 966 F.2d at 476 (“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 21 by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.”). 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 1 B. STANDING ORDER 2 The Court finds that parties have failed to comply with the Court’s 8/28/2024 Standing Order (ECF 3 No. 30) (updated June 2025). The Standing Order provides that:
4 B. Discovery Disputes Pursuant to LR 1-1(b)(2), Judge Couvillier requires the parties to follow the procedures 5 outlined below regarding any discovery dispute. No discovery motion may be filed until the following procedure has been followed and such motion is ordered by Judge 6 Couvillier: 7 1. If a discovery dispute arises the parties must first meet and confer to try to resolve their dispute in compliance with LR IA 1-3(f). Lead counsel for each 8 party shall meet and confer in person, videoconference, or telephone. A mere exchange of letters or e-mails does not satisfy the meet and confer requirement. 9 2. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute informally after a good-faith effort, the parties must file a single document captioned “Stipulation Regarding 10 Discovery Dispute” that addresses each one of the following items: i. A brief, joint summary of the discovery dispute not to exceed one (1) 11 page; ii. A restatement of the full text of the discovery requests, or deposition 12 question, in dispute as originally stated and the responses to the requests. 13 This may be done in single-spaced, 10-font. iii. A joint summary of the meet-and-confer efforts as required by LR IA 14 1-3(f), which includes: (1) a summary of discussions; (2) identification of time, place, manner, and participants; and (3) certification from counsel 15 that, despite a sincere effort, the parties were unable to resolve or narrow the dispute without court intervention. This joint meet- and-confer 16 summary may not exceed two (2) pages. iv. An explanation, without boilerplate language, of the position taken by 17 each side, not to exceed two (2) pages per side. v. Each side must make a proposal of compromise or resolution of the 18 disputed discovery (e.g., request, interrogatory, deposition question). The proposal may not exceed two (2) pages per side. 19 3. Upon review of the filed “Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute,” Judge 20 Couvillier may set a telephonic conference, order written briefing, or enter an order deciding the dispute without conference or briefing. 21 4. If an adverse party or counsel is not responsive or fails to cooperate in this process, a party may file a unilateral “Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute - 22 Filed Unilaterally in Compliance with Standing Order,” and set forth in detail efforts to meet and confer and obtain cooperation. 23 Standing Order, ECF No. 30 (updated June 2025). 24
25 1 The Court previously directed parties to comply with the Standing Order (see ECF No. 74). 2 Therefore, the parties are not strangers to this Court’s requirements. While the Court understands that 3 defendat/counterclaimant Telles is proceeding pro so, even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal 4 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the court in which litigation is proceeding. E.g. King v. 5 Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 6 1986) ("pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorable than parties with 7 attorneys of record"); Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro 8 se litigants expected to abide by the rules of the court in which litigation proceeds). 9 Thus, the Court denies without prejudice the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 85). Parties are directed 10 to meet and confer and, should any disputes remain, comply with the Standing Order regarding any 11 remaining discovery disputes. 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 1 || I. CONCLUSION 2 Parties failed to comply with the Standing Order (ECF No. 30) (updated June 2025). Therefore, 3 || the Court denies the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 85) for this reason. Parties are directed to meet and 4 || confer and comply with the Standing Order on any remaining discovery disputes. 5 6 ACCORDINGLY, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 85) is DENIED without prejudice. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer by no later than August 30, 9 || 2025, to discuss the issues presented in the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 85) and related briefings. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send 11 || defendant/counterclaimant Telles a copy of the Court’s current Standing Order, located on this Court’s 12 || website. 13 4 DATED this 31st day of July 2025. L pp DO IT IS SO ORDERED. Yt 7 ip ff \ 16 We Maximiligho D. Go flier 11 nited States fo Judge NOTICE 18 9 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and
recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk
of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal
may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified
33 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985).
This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2)
05 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District
1 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 2 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 3 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 4 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 5 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 6 result in dismissal of the action.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25