Flynn v. State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 DAWNYELL TENAYA FLYNN, 6 Case No. 2:22-cv-01753-JAD-NJK Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 102] STATE OF NEVADA EX REL. NEVADA 9 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion to compel. Docket No. 102. 12 Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 116. Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 13 127. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 Plaintiff’s suit alleges Defendants, State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Department of 16 Corrections, and James Dzurenda, in his official capacity (collectively “State Defendants”), failed 17 to protect Plaintiff from sexual assault by its formal employee, Defendant Donald Burse, while 18 Plaintiff was in NDOC custody. See Docket No. 27. 19 On June 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel State Defendants to respond to 20 numerous discovery requests. Docket No. 97. State Defendants filed a joint motion for protective 21 order. Docket No. 98. On June 16, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel without 22 prejudice because the Court was “not persuaded that a sufficiently meaningful effort was made to 23 at least narrow and focus the issues in dispute.” Docket No. 99 at 2. The Court ordered the parties 24 to reengage in conferral efforts and instructed that any renewed motion practice must be brought 25 no later than June 30, 2025. Id. 26 The instant renewed motion to compel was filed on June 30, 2025. Docket No. 102. 27 Plaintiff submits that counsel for the parties have engaged in extensive, good faith meet and confer 28 efforts, yet significant discovery disputes reman unresolved. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff submits that 1 there are outstanding discovery disputes regarding Plaintiff’s first, second, and third set of requests 2 for production of documents and second set of interrogatories. Docket No. 102. In response, State 3 Defendants submit that “the majority of the alleged discovery disputes set forth by Plaintiff have 4 been mooted by subsequent events that have permitted State Defendants to disclose documents 5 previously withheld.” Docket No. 116 at 5. State Defendants contend that the only request for 6 production to which it objects and will not respond is request for production 53. Id. Plaintiff 7 replies that “[t]his characterization does not fully account for the current status of discovery.” 8 Docket No. 127 at 2. Plaintiff contends that State Defendants have made some productions 9 following filing of the instant motion; however, “significant gaps remain in their compliance with 10 basic discovery obligations.” Id. 11 II. STANDARDS 12 “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery.” Hallett v. 13 Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 14 (1998). When a party fails to provide discovery and the parties’ attempts to resolve the dispute 15 without Court intervention are unsuccessful, the opposing party may seek an order compelling that 16 discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party seeking to avoid discovery bears the burden of showing 17 why it should not be permitted. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). 18 Arguments against discovery must be supported by “specific examples and articulated reasoning.” 19 U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Ent., 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 2006). 20 Parties are permitted to seek discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant and 21 proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). District courts enjoy wide discretion 22 in deciding relevancy for discovery purposes.1 E.g., Shaw v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 306 23 F.R.D. 293, 296 (S.D. Cal. 2015). To be permissible, discovery must be “relevant to any party's 24 claim or defense.” In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 563-64 (D. Ariz. 25 2016) (discussing impact of 2015 amendments to definition of relevance for discovery purposes). 26

27 1 Material may be discoverable even if not admissible at trial, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and relevance for discovery purposes is broader than relevance for trial purposes, see, e.g., F.T.C. v. 28 AMG Services, Inc., 291 F.R.D. 544, 552 (D. Nev. 2013). 1 Relevance for the purposes of discovery is defined broadly. See, e.g., V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 2 334 F.R.D. 306, 309 (D. Nev. 2019). 3 “Proportionality focuses on the marginal utility of the discovery being sought.” Guerrero 4 v. Wharton, No. 216CV01667GMNNJK, 2017 WL 7314240, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 30, 2017) (citing 5 In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., 180 F. Supp. 3d 273, 280 n.43 6 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)). Proportionality is judged based on: (1) the importance of the issues at stake in 7 the action; (2) the amount in controversy; (3) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; 8 (4) the parties’ resources; (5) the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and (6) 9 whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. 10 P. 26(b)(1). “At bottom, proportionality is a ‘common-sense concept’ that should be applied to 11 establish reasonable limits on discovery.” Guerrero v. Wharton, No. 216CV01667GMNNJK, 12 2017 WL 7314240, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 30, 2017) (quoting Sprint Comm's Co. v. Crow Creek 13 Sioux Tribal Court, 316 F.R.D. 254, 263 (D.S.D. 2016)). 14 “Discovery motions will not be considered unless the movant (1) has made a good-faith 15 effort to meet and confer as defined in LR IA 1-3(f) before filing the motion, and (2) includes a 16 declaration setting forth the details and results of the meet-and-confer conference about each 17 disputed discovery request.” Local Rule 26-6(c). 18 III. ANALYSIS 19 Both parties concede that the landscape of discovery changed during the pendency of the 20 instant motion. Docket Nos. 102, 116, 127. The parties have differing views on that discovery, 21 but have not engaged in a renewed meet and confer, as required. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice. 3, Docket No. 102. The parties must engage in a renewed, robust meet and confer, as required. If necessary, any renewed motion to compel must be filed no later than October 10, 2025. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: September 24, 2025. □□ So Nancy J. Koppe. ¥ 8 United States Mag Istrate Judge

10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28