EB Holdings II, Inc. v. Illinois National Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 6, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02248
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 EB HOLDINGS II, et al., 7 Case No. 2:20-cv-02248-JCM-NJK Plaintiff(s), 8 Order v. 9 [Docket No. 94] ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE 10 COMPANY, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant Illinois National’s motion to compel. Docket No. 13 94. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 100. The Court does not require a reply 14 or a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 15 “Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” F.D.I.C. v. 16 Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). Counsel should strive to be cooperative, 17 practical, and sensible, and should seek judicial intervention “only in extraordinary situations that 18 implicate truly significant interests.” In re Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 19 331 (N.D. Cal. 1985). Discovery motions will not be considered “unless the movant (1) has made 20 a good faith effort to meet and confer . . . before filing the motion, and (2) includes a declaration 21 setting forth the details and results of the meet-and-confer conference about each disputed 22 discovery request.” Local Rule 26-7(c). 23 Judges in this District have held that the rules require that the movant must “personally 24 engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully discuss each 25 contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.” ShuffleMaster, Inc. 26 v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996). The consultation obligation 27 “promote[s] a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow 28 and focus the matters in controversy before judicial resolution is sought.” Nevada Power v. 1} Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D.Nev.1993). To meet this obligation, parties must “treat the 2|| informal negotiation process as a substitute for, and not simply a formalistic prerequisite to, 3] judicial resolution of discovery disputes.” /d. This is done when the parties “present to each other 4] the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support during the 5] informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions.” /d. To ensure that parties 6|| comply with these requirements, movants must file certifications that “accurately and specifically 7|| convey to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties attempted to personally 8] resolve the discovery dispute.” ShuffleMaster, 170 F.R.D. at 170.! Courts may look beyond the 9] certification made to determine whether a sufficient meet-and-confer actually took place. Cardoza 10] v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015). 11 The motion indicates that a meet-and-confer was conducted through written 12|| correspondence that culminated in a telephonic conference on September 14, 2021. See Docket No. 94 at 2-3; see also Docket No. 94 at JJ 14-18. Plaintiffs response highlights developments 14] after that conference, however, including supplemental discovery responses and a detailed letter 15] offering further conferral efforts from October 2021 that went unanswered. See Docket No. 100 16] at 6-8; see also Docket No. 100-2 at 10-18; Docket No. 100-3. The Court agrees with Plaintiff 17] that sufficient meet-and-confer efforts were not shown in the motion. The conferral efforts through 18] the September telephone conference do not amount to a completion of the process and did not 19] account for subsequent developments. Cf Garcia v. Serv. Emps. Int’] Union, 332 F.R.D. 351, 355 20] n.7 (D. Nev. 2019) (“additional in-person or telephonic conferences are generally required when the circumstances of a discovery dispute have evolved”). 22 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: January 6, 2022 Nancy J. Koppe,’ 26 United States Wiagistrate Judge 27), ——__________ ' These requirements are now largely codified in the Court’s local rules. See Local Rule 28] 26-7(c), Local Rule IA 1-3(f).