Thomas Supranovich v. Juan Julio, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 22, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00979
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 Thomas Supranovich, Case No. 2:24-cv-00979-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 26] 9 Juan Julio, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Docket No. 26.1 Defendant filed 12 a response in opposition. Docket No. 29. Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 30. The motion is 13 properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the 14 Court GRANTS the motion to compel. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiff is a prisoner bringing civil rights claims that include an alleged Eighth 17 Amendment violation for inadequate meals. See Docket No. 3 at 6.2 Plaintiff served discovery 18 requests seeking documents as to the food orders for the prison kitchen, the invoices for the food 19 orders, the amount of waste expected in food preparation, and the number of inmates on the main 20 meal plan. Docket No. 29 at 2-3. Defendants objected to the requests on several grounds and 21 refused to provide responsive documents. See id. Following unsuccessful conferral efforts, 22 1 The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 23 89, 94 (2007). 24 2 The screening order construes Plaintiff’s complaint as alleging “that starting in the summer of 2022, a new menu was instituted with official portions sizes that were insufficient to 25 maintain inmates’ health. Routine shortages of various items caused portions sizes to be further reduced and various items to be eliminated entirety. Defendants Dzurenda, Julio, John Doe, and 26 Najera were all informed, either directly or through grievances, that the portion sizes were too small to maintain inmates’ health and that inmates were suffering from caloric deficiency and 27 malnutrition as a result. Supranovich suffered from fatigue, weight loss, vision and dental problems, loss of bone and muscle mass, and various other health issues as a result of 28 malnutrition.” Id. 1 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Docket No. 26. Defendant opposes the motion based solely on 2 a relevancy argument. Docket No. 29. 3 II. STANDARDS 4 When a party fails to provide discovery and conferral efforts are unsuccessful, the 5 requesting party may move to compel that discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party seeking to 6 avoid discovery bears the burden of showing why the discovery should not be permitted. V5 Techs. 7 v. Switch, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 306, 309 (D. Nev. 2019) (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 8 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)). The party resisting discovery must specifically detail the reasons why 9 each request is irrelevant or otherwise objectionable, and may not rely on boilerplate, generalized, 10 conclusory, or speculative arguments. F.T.C. v. AMG Servs., Inc., 291 F.R.D. 544, 553 (D. Nev. 11 2013). Arguments against discovery must be supported by “specific examples and articulated 12 reasoning.” E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Ent., 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 2006). 13 Discovery must be relevant to a claim or defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also in 14 re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 563-64 (D. Ariz. 2016). Relevancy for 15 discovery purposes remains a broad concept in light of the liberal principles of discovery. See V5 16 Technologies, 334 F.R.D. at 309.3 “District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy 17 for discovery purposes.” Shaw v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 306 F.R.D. 293, 296 (S.D. Cal. 2015) 18 (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)). 19 III. ANALYSIS 20 The information Plaintiff seeks plainly falls within the broad concept of relevancy. The 21 information will show both the amount of food that would be required to sustain the prison’s 22 populations and the amount of food that was actually obtained (and available considering expected 23 waste) to do so. If insufficient food was obtained for the nutritional needs of the prison as a whole, 24 3 The 2015 amendments to the discovery rules added focus on proportionality, including 25 analysis of whether the cost or expense of the discovery outweighs its usefulness to the case. See Bard IVC Filters, 317 F.R.D. at 564-65. Defendants’ responses to the subject discovery raises a 26 proportionality objection, see Docket No. 29 at 2-3, but their briefing in opposition to the pending motion does not offer any argument on that issue. As such, Defendants have abandoned their 27 proportionality objection. See, e.g., Wells v. Global Tech. Indus., Inc., 2022 WL 4626014, at *3 n.4 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2022). The Court addresses herein solely whether the discovery sought falls 28 within the broad scope of discovery relevancy. 1} that would bear on Plaintiffs claim that he as a prisoner was provided insufficient food. For 2|| purposes of discovery relevancy, that is enough.* CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel. Defendants must provide the 5], subject discovery to Plaintiff by February 12, 2026. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: January 22, 2026 .

Nancy J. Keppé, 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 * Tt could well be that this information is of relatively slim value in Plaintiff proving his claim, but Defendants abandoned their argument as to proportionality and are arguing only that 27} the discovery is not within the broad scope of relevancy. See Docket No. 29. The Court does not address whether the burden or expense of the Defendants providing this discovery outweighs its 28]| likely benefit in proving Plaintiffs claims.