Iovino v. AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA CARMEN IOVINO, 6 Case No. 2:22-cv-01974-APG-NJK Plaintiff(s), 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 98] AM TRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al., 10 Defendant(s).

11 Pending before the Court is a motion to compel production of an unredacted version of the post-litigation claims file. Docket No. 98.1 13 “Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). Counsel must strive to be cooperative, practical, and sensible, and should seek judicial intervention “only in extraordinary situations that implicate truly significant interests.” In re Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D. 17 Cal. 1985). To that end, discovery motions may be filed only after a robust conferral process, which requires personal consultation in the form of in-person, telephonic, or video discussions.

19 See Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015); see also Local Rule IA 1-3(f). The fact that a party seeks emergency relief does not obviate the requirement to confer. “To the contrary, a good faith and thorough attempt to resolve the dispute without Court intervention is even more critical when time is of the essence.” Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1142.

1 The motion is accompanied by an omnibus document with hundreds of pages of various exhibits. Docket No. 98-2. Counsel must file each exhibit separately moving forward. See Local Rule IC 2-2(a)(3)(A) (exhibits must be filed “as separate files”).

The caption of the motion includes the wrong case number information. Compare Docket No. 98 at 1 with Docket No. 80 (“All further documents must bear the correct case number 2:22- cv-01974-APG-NJK” (bolding in original, underlining added)). Counsel must include the correct case information moving forward.

1 The instant motion indicates that a meet-and-confer was held on March 7, 2024, but no meaningful details are provided. See Docket No. 98 at 4; but see ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996). On April 1, 2024, the claims file was produced 4] in redacted form. See id. at 5. It does not appear that further conferral efforts were made in relation 5]| to those redactions. But see McNamara v. Hallinan, 2019 WL 918984, at *2 n.3 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 6] 2019) (further telephonic conference is required when circumstances have changed regarding the 7|| issues in dispute).

8 Accordingly, the motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: April 26, 2024 he.

Nancy J. Koppe \, 12 United States Magistrate Judge