Sanchez v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
Filing
44
ORDER Denying without prejudice 39 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/27/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
ERICK SANCHEZ, et al.,
8
9
10
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:11-cv-01507-KJD-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL (Docket No. 39)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, filed on February 15, 2013.
Docket No. 39. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
15
The Court’s initial inquiry regarding a motion to compel is whether the movant made
16
adequate meet and confer efforts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(B) requires that a “party
17
bringing a motion to compel discovery must include with the motion a certification that the movant
18
has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the nonresponsive party.” Similarly, Local
19
Rule 26-7(b) provides that “[d]iscovery motions will not be considered unless a statement of the
20
movant is attached thereto certifying that, after personal consultation and sincere effort to do so, the
21
parties have not been able to resolve the matter without Court action.”
22
Judges in this District have previously held that “personal consultation” means the movant
23
must “personally engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully
24
discuss each contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.”
25
ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996). The
26
consultation obligation “promote[s] a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by
27
agreement or to at least narrow and focus matters in controversy before judicial resolution is
28
sought.” Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D.Nev.1993). To meet this obligation,
1
parties must “treat the informal negotiation process as a substitute for, and not simply a formal
2
prerequisite to, judicial review of discovery disputes.” Id. This is done when the parties “present to
3
each other the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support
4
during the informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions.” Id. To ensure that
5
parties comply with these requirements, movants must file certifications that “accurately and
6
specifically convey to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties attempted to
7
personally resolve the discovery dispute.” ShuffleMaster, 170 F.R.D. at 170 (emphasis added).
8
The Court was unable to locate any certification filed with the pending motion to compel.1
9
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is hereby DENIED without prejudice.
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
DATED: February 27, 2013
12
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
As explained in the order issued concurrently herewith, the motion for protective order to
which the motion to compel counters also fails to provide a sufficient meet and confer certification.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
