Cranford v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 17, 2023
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00386
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

4 KEISHAWN CRANFORD, Case No. 3:21-CV-00386-RCJ-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL 6 v. [ECF Nos. 55, 56] 7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Currently pending before the Court are two motions to compel discovery filed by 11 Plaintiff Keiwshawn Cranford (“Cranford”). (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) In the first motion, Cranford 12 seeks to compel various defendants to provide responses to interrogatories and requests 13 for production of documents. (ECF No. 55.) In the second motion, Cranford seeks to 14 compel responses to requests for admission served upon Defendant Michael Minev. 15 (ECF No. 56.) Both motions are less than one page and fail to comply with several 16 procedural requirements. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Cranford’s 17 motions to compel, (ECF Nos. 55, 56), without prejudice. 18 A. Meet-and-Confer Requirement 19 Pursuant to this Court’s scheduling order and the Court’s Local Rules, prior to filing 20 a discovery motion, the parties must first undertake a good faith effort to resolve any 21 dispute among the parties. Specifically, a discovery motion will not be considered unless 22 the movant has made a good-faith effort to meet-and-confer with the opposing party 23 before filing the motion. To comply with the meet-and-confer requirement, an incarcerated 24 party is required to send a written communication to the opposing counsel or party 25 explaining, with specificity, the discovery dispute, and a request to hold a telephonic meet- 26 and-confer session. See LR IA 1-3(f); LR 26-6(b)-(c). 27 If the meet-and-confer efforts are unsuccessful, the party seeking to compel 1 following: (1) a declaration providing the details and results of the meet-and-confer 2 conference about each disputed discovery request; and (2) the full text of each discovery 3 request and disputed response at issue. (Id.) 4 Here, it is apparent that no meet-and-confer took place prior to filing either of the 5 discovery motions. There is no statement in either motion related to any meet-and-confer 6 taking place or any attempt to meet-and-confer being made by Cranford. In addition, 7 neither motion is accompanied by a declaration detailing the attempts or results of any 8 meet-and-confer or attempts to meet-and-confer as required by the rules. On this basis 9 alone, the motions must be denied. 10 B. Additional Procedural Issues 11 However, in addition to the failure to meet-and-confer prior to filing either motion, 12 Cranford’s motions also fail to comply with other procedural requirements. For example, 13 pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, all motions must be supported by a memorandum of 14 points and authorities, which explains the relief requested and provides citations to legal 15 authorities that support the moving party’s position. See LR 7-2(a). The failure of the 16 moving party to file a points and authorities in support of a motion, “constitutes a consent 17 to denial of the motion.” LR 7-2(d). Neither motion is supported by a memorandum points 18 and authorities. 19 In addition, when a party files a motion to compel discovery, the moving party must 20 set forth, in full, the text of the discovery originally sought and any response to it. LR 26- 21 6(b). Here, Cranford simply attached to each motion the entirety of the sets of discovery 22 requests sent to Defendants and all of the responses to each of those requests. (ECF No. 23 55 at 3-20, ECF No. 56 at 3-16.) He did not identify which of the specific discovery 24 requests or responses he takes issue with. It is not up to the Court to determine which of 25 the discovery responses he deems inadequate nor will the Court simply assume that he 26 takes issue with all of the discovery responses. Rather, the moving party must specifically 27 identify the discovery requests and responses that are at issue in a discovery motion. LR 1 C. Misc. Issues 2 Both parties are reminded that “discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal 3 involvement of the Court.” V5 Tech. v. Switch, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 297, 301 (D. Nev. 2019) 4 (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)). To this end, counsel 5 and pro se litigants, “should strive to be cooperative, practical, and sensible, and should 6 seek judicial intervention only in extraordinary situations that implicate truly significant 7 interests.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, prior to the filing of any additional 8 discovery motions, the parties are reminded of their obligations to comply with the Federal 9 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s Local Rules, and the Court’s orders. Any additional 10 discovery motions may only be filed after: (1) a proper meet-and-confer has taken place; 11 (2) the issues for the Court’s consideration are properly narrowed to only those issues 12 that the parties cannot agree upon; and (3) moving party files a proper memorandum of 13 points and authorities in support of the discovery motion which specifically identifies the 14 discovery requests and responses at issue along with a declaration detailing the meet- 15 and-confer efforts. See LR IA 1-3(f); LR 26-6(b)-(c); LR 7-2(a). 16 With that being said, the Court must issue a word of caution to Defendants. 17 Although the Court is denying Cranford’s motions to compel based on the procedural 18 issues outlined above, the Court has reviewed the discovery requests and responses that 19 were attached to each motion and is deeply troubled by Defendants conduct in discovery 20 thus far. It appears Defendants made repeated objections based on claims of “compound 21 questions” and as such refused to provide any “answer or document” in response to many 22 of the interrogatories served. (See ECF No. 55 at 5-20.) Defendants are reminded that 23 despite objections related to compound questions, vagueness or the like, parties are 24 required to respond to an interrogatory to the fullest extent possible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 33(b)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b) Advisory Committee Notes (1993 Amendment). In addition, 26 a responding party must use common sense and reason when responding to discovery. 27 Williams v. Adams, 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS, 2009 WL 1220311, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 1 Therefore, Defendants are reminded of their obligation to act in good faith and to 2 provide responses to discovery requests to the fullest extent possible, even if they object to portions of a discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b) Advisory Committee Notes (1993 4) Amendment). Moreover, Defendants are reminded that this Court will not tolerate 5 | gamesmanship by defense counsel or refusals to cooperate in the discovery process. As 6 | such, Defendants are ordered to review their discovery responses provided to date, and 7 | to supplement those responses consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 8 | the Court’s guidance as stated above. 9 For all the reasons stated above, Cranford’s motions to compel, (ECF Nos. 55, 56), are denied without prejudice. . 11 DATED: May 17, 2023. 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28