Alexander v. Chadwick ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6) MICHAEL ALEXANDER, Case No. 2:22-cv-01084-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order [Docket No. 67] 9| COREY CHADWICK, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. Docket No. 81. 12 “Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” F.D.LC. v. 13] 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 15] truly significant interests.” In re Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D. Cal. 1985). To that end, discovery motions may be filed only after a robust conferral process, 17|| which requires personal consultation in the form of in-person, telephonic, or video discussions. 18|| See Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015); see also Local 19] Rule IA 1-3(f). 20 The motion practice was preceded by “emails [Plaintiff's counsel] ha[s] sent to Mr. 21|| Leonard on multiple occasions since the litigation started.” Docket No. 67 at 16. As the case law the rules make clear, however, “[t]he exchange of written, electronic, or voice-mail 23|| communications does not satisfy” the meet-and-confer requirement. Local Rule 1-3(f). Accordingly, the motion to compel discovery is DENIED without prejudice. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 26 Dated: August 29, 2024 Lo AX et Nancy J..Koppés, *. 28 United States.Magisirate Judge '