Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BALDWIN v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 2:17-cv-00807-RFB-NJK. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20171003d72 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2017
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel. Docket No. 37. The "argument" presented consists primarily of a block quotation of Rule 26, brief discussion of an insurer's duty of good faith, and copying-and-pasting the discovery and objections thereto. Docket No. 37 at 6-14. Discovery disputes are not immune from the basic requirement that parties meaningfully develop their arguments. See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D
More

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel. Docket No. 37. The "argument" presented consists primarily of a block quotation of Rule 26, brief discussion of an insurer's duty of good faith, and copying-and-pasting the discovery and objections thereto. Docket No. 37 at 6-14. Discovery disputes are not immune from the basic requirement that parties meaningfully develop their arguments. See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013). Identifying discovery objections and asserting without elaboration that they "are frivolous and without merit," see Docket No. 37 at 12, is woefully insufficient to permit judicial review. Accordingly, the motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed motion must present specific, developed argument separately for each disputed discovery request addressing each objection.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer