John Meggs v. S. Jones 300 L.P.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02029
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 JOHN MEGGS, Case No. 2:24-CV-2029-GMN-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 S. JONES 300 L.P.,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff John Meggs’ Motion to Compel Inspection (ECF No. 11 20). The Court reviewed the Motion, Defendant’s Opposition (ECF No. 21), Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF 12 No. 23), and Defendant’s Counter Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 24). The Court 13 finds as follows. 14 I. Discussion 15 “Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” Cardoza v. 16 Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F.Supp.3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (internal citations and quotations 17 omitted). “A threshold issue in the review of any motion to compel is whether the movant made 18 adequate efforts to resolve the dispute without court intervention.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 19 37(a)(1)). Under U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada Local Rule 26-6(c) “[d]iscovery 20 motions will not be considered unless the movant (1) has made a good-faith effort to meet and confer 21 as defined in LR IA 1-3(f) before filing the motion, and (2) includes a declaration setting forth the 22 details and results of the meet-and-confer conference about each disputed discovery request.” 23 Here, the Court finds Plaintiff failed to comply with this threshold requirement before filing 24 the instant Motion. In his Reply, Plaintiff suggests because he sent Defendant a copy of the Motion 25 two days prior to its filing, he made an effort to satisfy this requirement. ECF No. 23 at 2. Said 26 simply, sending a motion two days before filing cannot reasonably be construed as inviting a “frank 27 exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement … before judicial resolution is sought.” 1 Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D. Nev. 1993).1 The failure to engage in a good 2 faith effort to resolve this issue through a meet and confer is grounds alone to deny Plaintiff’s 3 Motion. LR IA 1-3(f)(4). 4 Further, Plaintiff does not establish good cause or excusable neglect as required by Fed. R. 5 Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 26-3.2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows extensions 6 to the Court’s scheduling order “only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The Rule’s 7 “good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 8 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quote marks and 9 citation omitted). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason 10 for a grant of relief.” Id. 11 When determining whether a party’s failure to meet a scheduling deadline constitutes 12 excusable neglect, the Court applies “a four-factor equitable test, examining: (1) the danger of 13 prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the 14 proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Walls v. 15 Corecivic, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02201-KJD-PAL, 2018 WL 3973401, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 17, 16 2018) (quoting Irvine Unified Sch. Dist. v. K.G., 853 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2017)). Plaintiff 17 does not address either standard until Reply in which counsel admits to missing deadlines because 18 of his (office’s) failure to calendar deadlines and the departure of an employee. ECF No. 23 at 2. 19 Without more, the Court finds this to be the type of carelessness Johnson warned against. 20 Because the parties have not conducted a meet and confer on the inspection, and because 21 Plaintiff has not established good cause or excusable neglect, the Court denies the pending Motion 22 without prejudice. Should the parties meet and confer on the inspection and be unable to reach a 23 resolution, Plaintiff may once again file a motion to compel; provided, however, he demonstrates 24 the motion is based upon good cause and excusable neglect. 25

1 The Court rejects Plaintiff’s attempt to characterize this rule as putting “form over substance” by comparing 26 his position to that of the pro se prisoner litigant in Howard v. Boyd, Case No. 2:20-cv-00462-GMN-NJK, 2022 WL 257021, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2022). 27 2 Plaintiff filed the pending Motion two days after the close of discovery. Cf. ECF Nos. 19, 20. Since granting 1 Lastly, the Court denies Defendant’s Counter Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. LR IA 2 11-8 provides the Court with discretion to impose sanctions for certain conduct, including failure to 3 comply with the local rules. The Court finds an award of attorney’s fees is not warranted at this 4 time. 5 II. Order 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Inspection (ECF 7 No. 20) is DENIED without prejudice. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Counter Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 9 (ECF No. 24) is DENIED. 10 Dated this 20th day of November, 2025. 11

12 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27