ORDER

VALERIE P. COOKE, Magistrate Judge.

This order concerns two discovery motions that plaintiff Christopher Jones ("plaintiff") filed with the court: (1) plaintiff's motion to compel (#239); and (2) plaintiff's motion to determine sufficiency of admissions (#253). Each is addressed in turn.

I. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (#239)

On February 25, 2014, this court held a motions hearing during which the court considered several discovery disputes, one of which is plaintiff Christopher Jones's ("plaintiff") motion to compel discovery pursuant to FRCP 37(a) (#239). Defendant Jeremiah Schultz ("defendant") opposed (#246) and plaintiff replied (#250). The court ruled on several of the disputed discovery requests, but also ordered defendant's counsel to submit in camera documents responsive to requests for production of document Nos. 1 and 2, and interrogatories Nos. 21, 22, and 23 (#257). Defendant's counsel submitted the forty-eight documents in camera, and this order follows.

Request for production ("RFP") No. 1 requests "[a] copy of all documents relating to your employment separation/termination from the NDOC" (#239, p.3). RFP No. 2 requests "[a] copy of all use of force and any other report generated or written as a result on the incident involving this Plaintiff in the Unit 3A hallway at SDCC on 6-1-07." Id. at 5. Interrogatory Nos. 21, 22, and 23 state as follows:

Id. at 8.

The court reviewed the documents submitted in camera concerning defendant's Schultz's separation from employment with NDOC, and those records reflect that defendant Schultz resigned his employment with the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC") to work in the private sector and nothing more. There is nothing in defendant Schultz's documents produced related to use-of-force reports (Int. No. 23), or the incident involving plaintiff in the Unit 3A hallway as SDCC on June 1, 2007 (RFP. No. 2). Cynthia Wilden, the NDOC records manager, provided a declaration that the documents produced are the documents responsive to these discovery requests.

The court is satisfied that defendant and the NDOC have produced the documents as ordered, and that they shall not be produced to plaintiff because they are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. Plaintiff's motion to compel (#239) is denied in part as it concerns these disputed discovery issues. The court will shred the documents produced in camera.

II. Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Admissions (#253)

Plaintiff also filed a motion to determine sufficiency of admissions (#253), which drew defendant's motion to strike for failing to meet and confer before filing the motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 (#258). Plaintiff opposed the motion to strike (#259), and defendant replied (#267). Plaintiff also filed a motion for order shortening time, given the approaching discovery cutoff date (#260).

Plaintiff's motion concerns requests for admissions propounded on or about December 2, 2013, to defendant Mustafaa, and by these requests, plaintiff is asking defendant Mustafaa to authenticate certain documents (#253). The record reveals that defendant Mustafaa responded to the requests for admissions in late December, and plaintiff then sent a letter in which he outlined his objections concerning the responses. Id. at 253, pages 33-46. In a letter dated February 4, 2014, defendant Mustafaa's counsel replied in a four-page, single-spaced letter with an explanation about the disputed responses. Id. at #253, pages 50-53. By that letter, defendant Mustafaa's counsel provided a detailed response to each discovery disputes, and also provided first supplemental answers to fifty-eight of plaintiff's then sixty requests for admission. Id. Counsel also requested that if the letter response was unsatisfactory, that plaintiff meet and confer before filing a motion to compel. Id. Plaintiff did not meet and confer and, instead, filed the present motion.

As a preliminary matter, the court agrees with defendant Mustafaa that plaintiff failed to meet and confer in the wake of his counsel's detailed letter, which attempted to resolve many of the objections plaintiff raised. This alone warrants granting defendant Mustafaa's motion to strike. However, in the interest of managing the court's already congested docket in this case, the court will address plaintiff's motion (#253).

The court has reviewed defendant Mustafaa's supplemental responses, and they will stand; therefore, plaintiff's motion to determine sufficiency of requests for admissions (#253) is denied. Defendant Mustafaaa's motion to strike (#258), although well taken, is denied in the interests of concluding this latest round of discovery disputes in this case.

III. Conclusion

IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: