PRODOX, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL DOCUMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant Case No. 2:20-cv-02035-JAD-NJK United States District Court, D. Nevada Signed June 24, 2021 Counsel F. Christopher Austin, Weide & Miller, Ltd., Las Vegas, NV, Lance C. Venable, Pro Hac Vice, Law Office of Lance C. Venable, PLLC, Chandler, AZ, for Plaintiff. Brent Blakely, Pro Hac Vice, Blakely Law Group, Manhattan Beach, CA, Brian K. Walters, Craig J. Mariam, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant. Koppe, Nancy J., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. Docket No. 35. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See LR 78-1. The motion suffers from certain deficiencies, as stated below. I. MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT “Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986). Parties should strive to be cooperative, practical, and sensible, and should seek judicial intervention “only in extraordinary situations that implicate truly significant interests.” In re Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D. Cal. 1985). Discovery motions will not be considered “unless the movant (1) has made a good faith effort to meet and confer ... before filing the motion, and (2) includes a declaration setting forth the details and results of the meet-and-confer conference about each disputed discovery request.” LR 26-6(c). Judges in this District have held that these rules require the movant to “personally engage in two-way communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully discuss each contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.” ShuffleMaster, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996).[1] The consultation obligation “promote[s] a frank exchange between counsel to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow and focus matters in controversy before judicial resolution is sought.” Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co., 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D. Nev. 1993). To meet this obligation, parties must “treat the informal negotiation process as a substitute for, and not simply a formalistic prerequisite to, judicial resolution of discovery disputes.” Id. This occurs when the parties “present to each other the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity, and support during the informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery motions.” Id. To ensure that parties comply with these requirements, movants must file certifications that “accurately and specifically convey to the court who, where, how, and when the respective parties attempted to personally resolve the discovery dispute.” ShuffleMaster, 170 F.R.D. at 171. Courts may look beyond the certification made to determine whether a sufficient meet and confer occurred. See Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015). “A threshold issue in the review of any motion to compel is whether the movant made adequate efforts to resolve the dispute without court intervention.” Id. Plaintiff submits that, on June 2, 2021, it sent a letter to Defendant detailing every objection to Defendant's discovery responses. Docket No. 35-2 at 3. Plaintiff further states that Defendant never responded to the letter. Id. Nonetheless, Plaintiff's counsel states that, despite the lack of response, he spoke with counsel for Defendant “several times to try and resolve the dispute” and that the parties “reached an impasse.” Id. Plaintiff's certification therefore fails to comply with the Court's meet and confer requirements and, as such, the Court cannot determine whether a proper meet and confer occurred prior to the filing of the instant motion. II. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES *2 Courts only address well-developed legal arguments. See, e.g., Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013). Indeed, discovery motions must contain meaningfully developed legal arguments for courts to address them. See On Demand Direct Response, LLC v. McCart-Pollak, 2018 WL 2014067, at *1 n.2 (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2018). “Parties may not merely identify an objection or response in seeking judicial intervention.” Oliva v. Cox Comms. Las Vegas, Inc., 2018 WL 6171780, at *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2018). The instant motion quotes several discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff, as well as Defendant's responses thereto. See Docket No. 35 at 7–19. While the motion seeks an order compelling supplemental responses to these requests, it fails to cite to any case law specifically relating to the requests at issue. The arguments presented merely establish that Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant's objections; they fail to incorporate specific case law in support of the proffered disagreements. See id. The Court is mindful that the party resisting discovery will ultimately bear the burden of supporting its objections to the discovery sought. V5 Techs. V. Switch, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 306, 309 (D. Nev. 2019), aff'd sub nom. V5Techs., LLC v. Switch, LTD, 2020 WL 1042515 (D. Nev. Mar. 3, 2020); see also Carr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 312 F.R.D. 459, 469 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (concluding that 2015 amendments to discovery rules did not alter allocation of burdens). Nonetheless, a movant seeking an order compelling discovery bears an initial burden of presenting a motion with meaningfully developed legal arguments and specific case law. See, e.g., Silvagni v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 320 F.R.D. 237, 244 (D. Nev. 2017). The instant motion fails to do so. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion to compel, Docket No. 35, is hereby DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] See also LR IA 1-3(f), which states that the meet and confer requirement “may only be satisfied through direct dialogue and discussion in a face-to-face meeting, telephone conference, or video conference. The exchange of written, electronic, or voice-mail communications does not satisfy this requirement.”