Wieland v. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 ALICE WIELAND, Case No. 3:19-CV-0724-MMD-CLB

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER 11 EDUCATION,

12 Defendant. 13 _

___________________________/ 14 Before the court is plaintiff Alice Wieland’s (“Wieland”) notice of discovery dispute 15 (ECF No. 55). Defendant Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education 16 (“University”) filed a response (ECF No. 56). 17 It appears that the notice of discovery dispute (ECF No. 55) was filed prematurely 18 given the University’s response which indicates it believed the parties are still working 19 towards a resolution of the dispute. Therefore, the notice of dispute is denied as 20 premature. In addition, the parties shall meet and confer within 14 days of the date of this 21 order to resolve the dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved, Wieland may file a new 22 notice. 23 The court reminds the parties of their obligations to work through discovery 24 disputes. “Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” 25 F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). Counsel should strive to be 26 cooperative, practical and sensible, and should seek judicial intervention “only in 27 extraordinary situations that implicate truly significant interests.” Cardoza v. Bloomin’ 28 Brands, Inc., 141 F.Supp.3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015). The court notes that several 1| discovery disputes have already been filed in this case and any further dispute notice should only be filed after all efforts to resolve the issues without court involvement have been completely and entirely exhausted. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: April 2, 2021 < | » 6 4 UNITED STAT AGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-