Ryan Dean and Shantina Strong v. Jacob Theodore Smith, Daily Direct, LLC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada rules on several discovery and pleading motions in a personal injury action arising from a vehicle collision. The court denies without prejudice motions to amend the answer, supplement that motion, compel insurance disclosures, and compel a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 examination. The court grants an extension of discovery deadlines and orders the parties to meet and confer before renewing any motions to compel.

Holdings

1. The motion for leave to amend was denied without prejudice because Defendants did not provide sufficient information for the court to evaluate the Rule 15 factors and addressed those factors only conclusorily.
2. Defendants' motion to supplement was denied without prejudice because it cited the wrong legal standard and the proposed supplement did not assist the court in evaluating the Rule 15 factors.
3. Strong's motions to compel and supplement were denied without prejudice because the discovery issues had materially changed and the parties had not adequately met and conferred regarding the dispute as it then existed.
4. Good cause existed to extend the discovery deadlines, and Defendants' motion to extend discovery was granted.
5. Defendants' motion to compel Strong to undergo a Rule 35 examination was denied without prejudice because the parties were still attempting to negotiate the examination's terms and Defendants did not adequately document the meet and confer.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants sufficiently supported their motion for leave to amend their answer to add negligence and contribution counterclaims against Dean.
2. Whether Defendants satisfied the applicable standard for supplementing their motion to amend.
3. Whether Strong's motions to compel and supplement should be decided when the parties' discovery dispute had materially changed and the parties had not adequately met and conferred on the current issues.
4. Whether good cause existed to extend the discovery deadlines.
5. Whether Defendants' motion to compel a Rule 35 examination should be denied without prejudice because the parties were still attempting to negotiate the examination's parameters and Defendants had not adequately documented the meet and confer.

Disposition

other