Community Schools Initiative v. Vanguard Field Strategies, LLC ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 LEX TECNICA, LTD. and Case No. 2:23-cv-00069-APG-EJY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 5 INITIATIVE, ORDER 6 Plaintiffs, 7 v. 8 VANGUARD FILED STRATEGIES, LLC, and AXIOM LLC, 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Compel Community Schools Initiative’s 12 Compliance with Subpoena to Produce Documents. ECF No. 69. The Court has considered the 13 Motion, the Opposition (ECF No. 70), and the Reply (ECF No. 71). 14 There are three categories of documents at issue in the pending Motion to Compel. These 15 include (1) federal tax filings, (2) engagement letters, and (3) attachments to emails related to the 16 “Committee to Elect Dan Stewart.” ECF No. 71 at 2. Further, some documents were not produced 17 based on claims of privilege and work product. Despite a contention that no privilege log was 18 provided, Plaintiffs produced a privilege log on June 24, 2024. Defendants nonetheless argue any 19 objections asserted by Plaintiffs—including the assertion of attorney client privilege and work 20 product—were untimely and therefore waived. 21 The Local Rules for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada make clear that 22 discovery motions will not be considered “unless the movant … has made a good faith effort to meet 23 and confer ... before filing the motion.” LR 26-6(c). This Rule requires the moving party to 24 “personally engage in two-way communication with the … [non-moving] party to meaningfully 25 discuss each contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.” 26 ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996). Meeting this 27 obligation requires both parties to “treat the informal negotiation process as a substitute for, and not 1 Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D. Nev. 1993). In turn, the parties are expected to “present to each 2 other the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support during 3 informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions.” Id. Courts may look beyond the 4 meet and confer certification provided by the movant to determine whether a sufficient meet and 5 confer took place. See, e.g., Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F.Supp.3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 6 2015). 7 The Court reviewed the evidence of meet and confer attempts and finds they are insufficient. 8 The issues that remain must be discussed in earnest by the parties either in person, by Zoom (or an 9 equivalent) platform, or by telephone. Email exchanges, even though responses were not promptly 10 provided, do not meet the requirements of the Local Rules. The Court takes seriously the 11 requirement that the parties must make sincere efforts to resolve their differences. Only after that 12 sincere effort is exhausted is a motion to compel appropriate. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Community 14 Schools Initiative’s Compliance with Subpoena (ECF No. 69) is DENIED without prejudice. 15 Dated this 1st day of August, 2024. 16 17 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27