1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Scott Freeman, M.D., 2:22-cv-01433-RFB-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING THE STIPULATION 5 REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE vs. WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF NO. 312) 6

7 Stephen Hurst, et al, 8 Defendant(s). 9 10 The Court has reviewed the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute (ECF No. 312). 11 The Court DENIES the Stipulation without prejudice. 12 The parties dispute twenty-seven requests for admission. ECF No. 312 at 2. Plaintiff’s position is 13 essentially that he needs to file a full motion to compel, which is not reasonable. Defendants’ position is 14 that the requests are overly broad. Even if the requests are overly broad, upon review of some of the 15 defendants’ responses, the defendants did not produce any documents to the contested requests. "Despite 16 the overly broad nature of [a discovery request], a party typically has a duty to respond to it to the extent 17 the [discovery request] is not objectionable and can be narrowed to an appropriate scope." Moser v. 18 Health Ins. Innovations, Inc., No. 17cv1127-WQH(KSC),

, at *18-19 19 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2018), citing to Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. at 672. Plaintiff had a duty to work 20 through the stipulation with the defendants and the defendants had a duty to produce some documents. 21 The Court finds the parties did not meaningfully meet and confer. In addition, the parties shall 22 comply with the Court’s 8/19/24 Standing Order (ECF No. 212), particularly engaging in meaningful 23 and earnest meet and confer, to address this discovery dispute. 24 // 25 1 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute (ECF No. 312) is 2 || DENIED without prejudice. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: December 8, 2025. Cf.

7 Z (ramon avila 11 3 United Stated, Aagistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25