Butler v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Charles Butler, Case No. 2:23-cv-00566-APG-BNW 6 Plaintiff, 7 ORDER v. 8 Progressive Direct Insurance Company, 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 On April 9, 2024, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s first motion for a protective 13 order. The Court granted the motion in part and denied in part. The Court also directed the parties 14 to meet and confer regarding the scope of specific questions Plaintiff intended to ask Defendant’s 15 30(b)(6) witness as it pertained to Topic No. 18. The parties met and conferred and have not come 16 to a resolution. In turn, Defendant filed this second motion for a protective order. ECF No. 37. 17 Plaintiff responded and Defendant replied. ECF Nos. 39, 40. 18 I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) governs motions for protective order. In turn, the 20 Court may, for good cause “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, 21 embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A). The party 22 seeking to avoid discovery bears the burden of showing why that discovery should not be 23 permitted. V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 306, 309 (D. Nev. 2019). Arguments against 24 discovery must be supported by “specific examples and articulated reasoning.” E.E.O.C. v. 25 Caesars Ent., 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 2006). “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court 26 to permit or deny discovery.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 27 Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that “the failure of an opposing party to file points and 1 II. ANALYSIS 2 Defendant requests a protective order precluding Plaintiff from asking the 30(b)(6) 3 witness questions regarding interrogatories 11 and 12, and request for production no. 2. In 4 essence, these discovery requests concern incentive and bonus programs for Defendant’s claims 5 handling employees or agents in Nevada. Mirroring the objections to these requests, Defendant 6 argues that this topic is not relevant to the claim and not proportional to the needs of the case as it 7 would require two witnesses (one of them located outside of Nevada). Defendant also argues that 8 the topic is overbroad as the questions regarding bonuses and incentives are not sufficiently 9 limited to Butler’s case. Moreover, Defendant argues this information is privileged as it 10 constitutes a trade secret. Lastly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s latest notice of deposition 11 includes topics this court has previously denied. 12 Plaintiff’s response does not address any of Defendant’s arguments. Instead, Plaintiff airs 13 his discontent about the (long) process to get this witness deposed. As to the substantive 14 arguments made by Defendant, Plaintiff refers the Court to his “response to the original motion 15 which addressed the same issues. See, ECF 18 at P.4 L. 17-P.5 L.2.” ECF No. 39 at 7.1 16 First, it is not the Court’s job to dig through the record in an attempt to find out what 17 Plaintiff’s responses might be. Indeed, “judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in 18 briefs.” Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003). “Nor are they 19 archaeologists searching for treasure” as they are not “obligated to paw over files in order to 20 make a party’s claim.” Krause v. Nev. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:12-CV-00342-JCM, 2014 WL 99178, 21 at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2014). Worse yet, the document Plaintiff referenced (ECF No. 18) does not 22 respond to the lack of relevance, overbreadth, and privilege issues concerning bonuses/incentives. 23 As a result, Defendant’s motion is granted as unopposed under LR 7-2(d). 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 27 1 The Court will not consider Defendant’s request for costs regarding the deposition. No points 1 Ill. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Defendant’s motion at ECF No. 37 is GRANTED. The 3 || topics described in this order (as well as the ones previously denied) must not be asked of the 4 || 30(b)(6) witness. 5 6 DATED: September 13, 2024 7 LZ. gm la se bat 8 BRENDA WEKSLER 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28