Rega v. Vanguard Integrity Professionals, Inc.
2:17-cv-00110
D. Nev.Aug 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Barbara J. Rega sued Vanguard Integrity Professionals, Inc. and others in the District of Nevada (Case No. 2:17-cv-00110-JAD-NJK).
- Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery designated as Docket No. 32; the court denied it without prejudice.
- The court reiterates discovery should proceed with minimal court involvement and judges intervene only in extraordinary circumstances.
- Rule 37(a)(1) requires movant to certify in good faith that they conferred with the non-disclosing party to obtain the discovery.
- Local Rule 26-7(c) requires a meet-and-confer before filing and a declaration detailing the meet-and-confer effort for each disputed request.
- Plaintiff emailed Defendant’s counsel on June 23, 2017 requesting supplemental disclosures but failed to demonstrate a personal, two-way consultation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to compel complied with meet-and-confer requirements | Rega concedes efforts but cites email as meet-and-confer. | Vanguard contends there was no personal consultation. | Denied due to lack of proper meet-and-confer. |
| Whether mere email correspondence satisfies the meet-and-confer requirement | Email should suffice to initiate resolution. | Email alone does not meet the personal consultation standard. | Not satisfied; requirement not met. |
| Whether the motion to compel improperly seeks sanctions in addition to relief | Plaintiff intends sanctions, not just compulsion. | Motion improperly combines relief types. | Denied sanctions without prejudice. |
| Whether the court should grant the motion to compel despite procedural deficiencies | If merits exist, relief should be granted notwithstanding formalities. | Procedural deficiencies bar relief absent proper meet-and-confer. | Denied without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196 (E.D. Tenn. 1986) (discovery should proceed with minimal court involvement)
- In re Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (extraordinary necessity for court intervention in discovery disputes)
- Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (D. Nev. 2015) (requirement to meet and confer before filing discovery motions)
- ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166 (D. Nev. 1996) (two-way personal consultation promotes resolution of disputes)
- Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118 (D. Nev. 1993) (meeting and conferring to resolve discovery disputes)