1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 DIMONIQUE GIBBS, individually CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-01896-JCM-MDC

4 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE STIPULATOINS Nos. 69 & 70 5 VS. 6 BONNIE LYN GUTWEILER, 7 INDIVIDUALLY, HEDING TRUCK SERVICE, INC., A DOMESTIC BUSINESS, DOES I 8 THROUGH X, AND ROE CORPORATIONS I THROUGH X, INCLUSIVE, 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 The Court has reviewed the parties Stipulations Regarding Discovery Disputes at ECF Nos. 69 13 and 70. The stipulations concern a scheduling dispute over the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designee/s of 14 defendant Heding Truck Service, Inc. (“Heding”) and defendants’ retention of Zoran Maric, MD to 15 perform an Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 evaluation of plaintiff. The Court resolves the parties’ disputes as follows: 16 I. Plaintiff’s Objection To Zoran Maric, MD Is Overruled (ECF No. 69) 17 Plaintiff objects to the defendants’ retention of Zoran Maric, MD to perform an Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 18 evaluation of plaintiff because plaintiff claims Dr. Maric is biased. The party resisting discovery bears 19 “the heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied.” Daisy Tr. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank., 20

, at *2 (D. Nev. July 18, 2017)(citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp.,

, 429 21 (9th Cir. 1975)). To meet that burden, the party opposing discovery must specifically detail the reasons 22 for why discovery is objectionable and should be denied. Linksmart Wireless Tech., LLC v. Caesars Ent. 23 Corp.,

, at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 28, 2021). Such party “may not rely on boilerplate, 24 generalized, conclusory, or speculative arguments.”

(citing F.T.C. v. AMG Servs., Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2013)). “General objections are not useful to the court ruling on a discovery motion.” 1 Chubb Integrated Sys. Ltd. v. Nat'l Bank of Washington,

(D.D.C. 1984). Plaintiff does 2 not meet her heavy burden. 3 Plaintiff’s objection is bereft of any support. Plaintiff offers no authority for the proposition that 4 a party should be denied discovery or its choice of medical professional in conducting a Rule 35 5 examination. Moreover, plaintiff’s generalized, conclusory, and speculative bias objection may be an 6 evidentiary issue, but plaintiff fails to show bias is grounds to preclude discovery under Rule 35. See Fed. 7 R. Civ. P. 35 (no language precluding examiner on the grounds of bias). More specifically, as defendants 8 state in the Stipulation (ECF No. 69), this district has previously recognized that courts routinely reject 9 similar arguments. See Kolas v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01597-APG-NJK,

, 10 at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2018)( “Generalized assertions of bias are routinely rejected as insufficient grounds 11 to disqualify a physician from conducting an independent medical examination.”)(citing Baker v. Dexter, 12

, at *2 (D. Nev. June 15, 2015)). Not only does plaintiff fail to support her position, 13 but she also fails to address Kolas altogether. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objection to defendant’s designation 14 of Zoran Maric, MD to perform an Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 evaluation of plaintiff is overruled.

15 II. Defendant Heding Shall Produce Its Rule 30(b)(6) Designee/s For Deposition By June 22, 2025 (ECF No. 70) 16

17 Preliminarily, the parties’ seeming inability to resolve scheduling plaintiff’s deposition of 18 Heding’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee/s is unreasonable and suggests that counsel did not earnestly meet and 19 confer. Counsel have an obligation to meaningfully, substantively, and in good faith, meet and confer to 20 discuss each discovery request. Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist.

, *4 (D. NV. October 16, 2020). The parties’ Stipulation (ECF No. 70) appears to be an 22 inefficient use of the parties’ and Court’s resources. Ultimately, both parties effectively propose extending 23 the plaintiff’s expert disclosure deadline to accommodate scheduling plaintiff’s deposition of Heding’s 24 Rule 30(b)(6) designee/s: 25 1 V) Proposal of Compromise or Resolution of the Disputed Discovery A) Defendants’ position: The compromise that the defendants 2 offer is this—If the delay in taking the deposition causes any prejudice to the plaintiff, the defense will be willing to give plaintiff an extension of time 3 to file any expert report which may be affected. The deadlines will remain 4 in effect for the defendants’ experts. B) Plaintiff’s position: The only compromise for Plaintiff would 5 be for the Court to allow Plaintiff additional time to disclose experts to allow for additional time to take the subject deposition. 6 ECF No. 70 at pp. 4-5 7 8 The parties do not explain why they did not submit a stipulation to extend discovery instead of 9 filing the instant discovery dispute Stipulation (ECF No. 70). Thus, it appears this issue should have been 10 resolved without the Court’s intervention and consumption of judicial resources. 11 As to the parties’ inability to schedule the deposition, defense counsel argues that he requested 12 plaintiff’s counsel to reset the May 7, 2025, noticed deposition of Heding’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee as a 13 professional courtesy and suggests that plaintiff’s counsel failed to adhere to The Eighth Judicial District 14 Court’s Administrative Order 22-08 to elevate deposition practice and promote civility. ECF No. 70 a 3. 15 The Court notes that the State Bar of Nevada similarly adopted a Creed of Professionalism and Civility 16 which, among other things, encourages counsel to “consult other counsel regarding scheduling matters in 17 a good-faith effort to avoid scheduling conflicts.” See https://nvbar.org/for-lawyers/ethics- 18 discipline/creed-of-professionalism-and-civility/. Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the deposition has 19 previously been set eight (8) times and offers her own scheduling conflicts as well as the current deadlines 20 as limiting options to reschedule. Id. at p.3. Defense counsel does not dispute that the deposition has 21 been reset 8 times but argues that the deposition has only been reset once after January 2025. Id. 22 Resolution of the merits of the parties’ “he said, she said” conundrum is not necessary to resolve 23 the scheduling of the deposition at issue. That said, the Court does make the following observations. 24 Counsels’ obligation and commitment to civility and professionalism runs both ways. Counsel also have 25 1 obligation to diligently and timely complete discovery, and repeated continuances of depositions 2 || generally thwarts those objectives. 3 Finally, the Court reminds counsel that meeting and conferring requires a meaningful and sincere 4 || effort, openness, listening to each other, and compromise. The parties’ Stipulation (ECF No. 70) suggest 5 ||counsel fell short of these requirements. Counsel has been warned on prior occasions about failing to 6 and confer or complying with the Court’s discovery dispute resolution process. See ECF Nos. 33, 7 || 44, 50, 52. 8 This order shall serve as the last warning. Future violations will result in sanctions or awarding 9 || fees under Rule 16(f) and/or Rule 37. 10 In conclusion, defendant Heding shall produce its Rule 30(b)(6) Designee/s for deposition by June 11 2025. The Court will also consider a stipulation from the parties requesting an extension of time for 12 || plaintiff to disclose experts. 13 CONCLUSION and ORDER 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED the Stipulations Regarding Discovery Dispute (ECF 15 || Nos. 69, 70) are granted in part and denied in part as follows: 16 1) As to the parties Discovery Stipulation (ECF No. 69), plaintiff's objection to Zoran Maric, 17 || MD is OVERRULED; and 18 2) As to the parties Discovery Stipulation (ECF No. 70), defendant Heding shall produce its 19 || Rule 30(b)(6) Designee/s for deposition by June 22, 2025. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 22, 2025. 4p _ 22 tpn, a” 23 Ys L ‘\

25