1

2

3

4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 KEISHAWN CRANFORD, Case No.: 2:17-cv-02643-APG-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 10 v. (Docket Nos. 28, 30) 11 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for Rule 37 discovery sanctions. Docket 14 No. 28.1 Defendants’ motion, however, is in reality a motion to compel responses from Plaintiff 15 to their discovery requests. See Docket No. 28 at 3, 6–7, 8. Discovery motions will not be 16 considered “unless the movant (1) has made a good faith effort to meet and confer . . . before filing 17 the motion, and (2) includes a declaration setting forth the details and results of the meet-and- 18 confer conference about each disputed discovery request.” Local Rule 26-7(c). 19 Judges in this District have held that the rules require that the movant must “personally 20 engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully discuss each 21 contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.” ShuffleMaster, Inc. 22 v. Progressive Games, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 1996). The consultation obligation 23 “promote[s] a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow 24 and focus matters in controversy before judicial resolution is sought.” Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 25

(D. Nev. 1993). To meet this obligation, parties must “treat the informal 26 negotiation process as a substitute for, and not simply a formalistic prerequisite to, judicial 27 1 Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay the dispositive motion 28 deadline pending a ruling on the motion for Rule 37 discovery sanctions. Docket No. 30 at 4. 1} resolution of discovery disputes.” Jd. This is done when the parties “present to each other the 2|| merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support during the 3] informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions.” Jd. To ensure that parties comply with these requirements, movants must file certifications that “accurately and specifically convey to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties attempted to personally 6|| resolve the discovery dispute.” ShuffleMaster,

.7 Courts may look beyond the 7|| certification made to determine whether a sufficient meet-and-confer took place. See, e.g., 8|| Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2015). 9 Defendants’ motion states “that they made a good-faith effort to meet and confer with Plaintiff before filing this Motion,” citing Exhibit 5. Docket No. 28 at 8. The last time Defendants 11} spoke with Plaintiff, however, was on November 21, 2019—97 days before they filed their instant motion. Docket No. 28-5 at 3. Thus, anew meet-and-confer must occur before Defendants’ instant motion is properly before the Court. See McNamara vy. Hallinan,

, at *2 n.3 (D. 14] Nev. Feb. 25, 2019). 15 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for Rule 37 discovery sanctions. Docket No. 28. Further, the Court DENIES as moot Defendants’ motion to stay dispositive 17] motion deadline pending a ruling on the motion for Rule 37 discovery sanctions. Docket No. 30. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: March 23, 2020 Nancy J. Koppe. * 21 United StatesMagisirate Judge 22 23 24 25 26

> These requirements are now largely codified in the Court’s local rules. See Local Rule 28] 26-7(c), Local Rule IA 1-3(f).