Goodwin v. AT&T

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01950
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Antonio Goodwin, Case No. 2:23-cv-01950-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 AT&T, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Antonio’s motions to compel (ECF Nos. 48, 50). 12 Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s first motion to compel. (ECF No. 49). Defendant’s response to 13 Plaintiff’s second motion to compel is not yet due, but the Court does not require a response to 14 decide the motion. Nor does it require a reply.1 15 Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to respond to certain of his discovery requests. (ECF 16 Nos. 48, 50). He also apparently seeks to serve additional interrogatories on Defendant. (ECF 17 No. 48). Regarding his requests to compel, Plaintiff has not complied with the Federal and 18 Nevada Local Rules2 relevant to his request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is governed by Federal 19 Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) and Nevada Local Rule 26-6. Before bringing a motion to compel, 20 21 1 The Court does not need a further response from Defendant because Plaintiff’s motions to compel seek similar relief. And so, a further response would not affect the outcome of the motion 22 or either party’s substantive rights. Additionally, because the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions to compel on procedural grounds, a reply from Plaintiff would not change the Court’s decision. See 23 Alliance of Nonprofits for Ins., Risk Retention Group v. Kipper, 712 F.3d 1316, 1327-38 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that the district court did not commit reversible error when it determined certain 24 motions without awaiting or considering responses because the local rule at issue did not 25 guarantee a period of time to file a response and because the court’s failure to consider one response did not affect the outcome of the motion or the would-be respondent’s substantive 26 rights). 27 2 This refers to the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which can be found online at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-information/rules-and- 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 26-6(c) require the party bringing the 2 motion to make a good faith effort to meet and confer with the other party to attempt and resolve 3 the dispute without court action. Local Rule 26-6(c) explains: 4 Discovery motions will not be considered unless the movant (1) has made a good faith effort to meet and confer as defined in LR IA 1- 5 3(f)3 before filing the motion, and (2) includes a declaration setting 6 forth the details and results of the meet and confer conference about each disputed discovery request. 7 8 Additionally, Local Rule 26-6(b) requires that all motions for protective order “must set 9 forth in full the text of the discovery originally sought and any response to it.” 10 3 Local Rule IA 1-3(f) provides the following: 11 Meet and Confer. Whenever used in these rules, to “meet and 12 confer” means to communicate directly and discuss in good faith the issues required under the particular rule or court order. This 13 requirement is reciprocal and applies to all participants. Unless these rules or a court order provide otherwise, this requirement may 14 only be satisfied through direct dialogue and discussion in a face-to- 15 face meeting, telephone conference, or video conference. The exchange of written, electronic, or voice-mail communications does 16 not satisfy this requirement. 17 (1) The requirement to meet and confer face-to-face or via telephonic or video conference does not apply in the case of an 18 incarcerated individual appearing pro se, in which case the meet-and-confer requirement may be satisfied through written 19 communication. 20 (2) A party who files a motion to which the meet-and-confer requirement applies must submit a declaration stating all meet- 21 and-confer efforts, including the time, place, manner, and participants. The movant must certify that, despite a sincere 22 effort to resolve or narrow the dispute during the meet-and- 23 confer conference, the parties were unable to resolve or narrow the dispute without court intervention. 24 (3) In addition to any sanction available under the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure, statutes, or case law, the court may impose appropriate sanctions under LR IA 11-8 for a party’s failure to 26 comply with the meet-and-confer requirement. 27 (4) Failure to make a good-faith effort to meet and confer before filing any motion to which the requirement applies may result 1 A meet and confer is thus a prerequisite to Plaintiff filing his motions to compel. Because 2 it does not appear that the parties met and conferred, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.4 3 Additionally, without the text of the discovery originally sought and any response Defendant 4 made to it, the Court cannot decide Plaintiff’s requests to compel. So, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 5 motions for this reason too. 6 To the extent Plaintiff’s motion is seeking to extend the number of interrogatories he can 7 serve under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), the Court denies this request as well. (ECF 8 No. 48). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) provides that, unless otherwise stipulated or 9 ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written 10 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. That rule further provides that, “[l]eave to serve 11 additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).”5 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Plaintiff does not explain how many interrogatories he has served, why 13 he needs more, or why the additional interrogatories he requests are consistent with Federal Rules 14 of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and (2). So, the Court denies his motion regarding this request.6 15 (ECF No. 48). 16 17 18 19

20 4 In a separate motion, Plaintiff asserts to have spoken with Defendant’s counsel in February and March. (ECF No. 51 at 2-3). However, it is not clear to the Court whether those conversation 21 were meet and confers as defined in Local Rule IA 1-3(f). And in any event, Plaintiff did not file a declaration regarding the meet and confer as required by Local Rule IA 1-3(f)(2). To the extent 22 Plaintiff intended his motion for sanctions (ECF No. 51) to be that declaration, it is insufficient 23 because Plaintiff did not “include” the declaration with his motions to compel as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 26-6(c). Instead, he filed it days later. 24 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides the scope of discovery and Federal Rule of 25 Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) outlines certain limitations on discovery. 6 The Court declines to limit Plaintiff’s interrogatory submission to twenty-five interrogatories as 26 Defendant requests in response. (ECF No. 49). This is because Defendant did not separately 27 move for this relief and so Plaintiff does not have an opportunity to adequately respond. See Local Rule IC 2-2(b) (explaining that, for each type of relief requested or purpose of a document 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF Nos. 48, 50) 2 are denied. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this order. 3 4 DATED: March 27, 2025 5 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27