D.S. v. Clark County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 DS., 6 Case No. 2:22-cv-00246-JCM-NJK Plaintiff(s), 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 58] 9 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel. Docket No. 58. Discovery 12] motions will not be considered “unless the movant (1) has made a good faith effort to meet and 13] confer . . . before filing the motion, and (2) includes a declaration setting forth the details and 14] results of the meet-and-confer conference about each disputed discovery request.” Local Rule 26- 15] 7(c). “[T]his requirement may only be satisfied through direct dialogue and discussion in a face- 16] to-face meeting, telephone conference, or video conference. The exchange of written, electronic, 17] or voice-mail communications does not satisfy this requirement.” Local Rule JA 1-3(f). The 18] instant motion does not include a certification as to any face-to-face meeting, telephone 19] conference, or video conference. See Docket No. 58-1. Accordingly, the motion to compel is 20) DENIED without prejudice.! 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: March 20, 2023 Nancy J. Kn De 24 United Ropes, gistrate Judge 25 26 ' This issue has been percolating in written communications for several months. And, yet, Plaintiff asks for expedited review given upcoming deadlines. See Docket No. 58 at 2. It is not clear from the papers that expedited treatment is appropriate. Cf Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1143 (D. Nev. 2015) (recognizing that emergency motions “are not 28]| intended to save the day for parties who have failed to present requests when they should have”).