Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Kamer Zucker x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Civil Rights: Jobs | Nevada
Bill of Costs
BILL OF COSTS by Defendant Silverton Casino, LLC. Objection to Bill of Costs is due by 10/23/2026. Tax Bill of Costs by 10/30/2026. (Abbott, Scott)
Minute Order Order on Motion to Compel
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 10/9/2026. By Law Clerk: S. Gorba.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 15 ) that does not comply with the Court's local rules. Under Local Rule 26-6, motions to compel "must set forth in full the text of the discovery originally sought and any response to it." LR 26-6. Plaintiff only includes summaries of her discovery request and responses which makes it impossible for the Court to evaluate the issue and determine whether supplementation or further production is warranted. In addition, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel does not comply with the Court's formatting requirements. Under LR IA 10-1, lines of text must be double spaced and numbered consecutively beginning with 1 on the left margin of each page.
Though Plaintiff demonstrates that she met and conferred with Defendant, the Court orders the parties meet one more time in an attempt to resolve or narrow the issues presented before she may refile her motion. To assist with the additional meet and confer ordered below, Defendant is reminded that "[b]oilerplate, generalized objections are inadequate and tantamount to not making any objection at all." Jane Doe 130 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, 717 F.Supp.2d 1120, 1126 (D. Or. 2010) (citations omitted). Discovery that is withheld based on privilege must be accounted for on a privilege log. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Plaintiff is reminded that responses stating there are no responsive documents or that all responsive documents have been produced are sufficient. Objections followed by responsive information are also generally sufficient. Facially overbroad requests seeking every document or communication relating to an action are not proportional to the needs of the case. Jimenez v. City of Chicago, 733 F.Supp.2d 1268, 1273 (W.D. Wash. 2010).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 15 ) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must meet and confer either in person or by videoconference to discuss each discovery request at issue. Only after meet and confer efforts are exhausted is a refiling of Plaintiffs Motion appropriate.
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.