SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP., Plaintiff, v. ERIC G. BENDER, an Individual, OWEN HUNNEL, an Individual; and XAVIER SUMMERS, an Individual, Defendants Case No. 2:23-cv-00437-CDS-MDC United States District Court, D. Nevada Filed July 11, 2024 Counsel Amy M. Samberg, Clyde & Co. U.S. LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Dylan P. Todd, Clyde & Co. LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff. Amanda A. Harmon, Kevin Rene Hansen, Law Offices of Kevin R. Hansen, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant Eric G. Bender. Couvillier III, Maximiliano D., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL *1 The Court has considered the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 37) (“Motion”) by defendant Eric G. Bender (“Bender”) and related briefs. The Court DENIES the Motion for the reasons set forth below. I. INTRODUCTION The Complaint in this action was filed on March 3, 2023. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief regarding insurance coverage related to an attack and shooting of Bender by defendants Owen Hunnel (“Hunnel”) and Xavier Summers (“Summers”). On June 7, 2023, the Court entered an Order granting the parties’ proposed discovery plan (ECF No. 15), which set provided a discovery deadline of November 23, 2023. The parties then sought and obtained two subsequent extensions to discovery and other pre-trial deadlines. Both stipulations were prepared by Bender. See ECF Nos. 18 and 32. The first discovery extension was granted on September 21, 2023 (ECF No. 19), extending the discovery deadline to February 26, 2024. The second extension was granted on February 28, 2023 (ECF No. 33), which set the discovery deadline to April 27, 2024, and the dispositive motion deadline to May 27, 2024. Bender's Motion is vague and largely bereft of relevant points and authorities. Bender appears to seek an order compelling plaintiff to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition and to provide “meaningful[ ] responses to two set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents.” ECF No. 37 at 6. Bender contacted plaintiff to set up the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on December 6, 2023. Plaintiff served the written discovery at issue on December 5, 2023, and January 31, 2024. See ECF No. 37 at 2-5. Bender states that plaintiff served responses to his written discovery on January 4, 2024, and April 4, 2024. Bender claims that plaintiff's responses consisted only of various objections. See ECF No. 37 at 2-4. Bender's Motion, however, does not set forth the full the text of his interrogatories and document request and plaintiff's responses as required by LR 26-6(b). Bender's Motion contains a declaration from his counsel identifying several communications with plaintiff's and generally summarizing discussions about plaintiff's discovery responses and Bender's desire to depose plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) designee/s. ECF No. 37 at 2-5. The last such communication occurred on April 4, 2024. See ECF No. 37 at 5. II. DISCUSSION The Court denies Bender's Motion for the following various and independent grounds. A. BENDER DID NOT COMPLY WITH LR 26-6(b) LR 26-6(b) requires that “[a]ll motions to compel discovery or for a protective order must set forth in full the text of the discovery originally sought and any response to it.” Id. Bender's Motion does not set forth in full the text of his interrogatories and document requests and plaintiff's responses. Instead, Bender attaches over a hundred pages of documents consisting of correspondence and written discovery. It is not the responsibility of the Court to sift through the parties’ discovery to root for issues and disputes. See Agarwal v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:11-cv-01384-LDG-CWH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7717, at *9 (D. Nev. Jan. 18, 2013) (“Essentially, Plaintiffs have just dumped all of the prior discovery into this motion with the expectation that the Court sift and root for issues. With all due respect, judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs and it is not the responsibility of the judiciary to sift through scattered papers...”) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Greenly v. Sara Lee Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35472, 2008 WL 1925230 (E.D. Cal. 2008). B. BENDER'S MOTION IS DEVOID OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES *2 LR 7-2(a) provides that all motions must be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities. Id. LR 7-2(d) further provides that “[t]he failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.” Id. Bender's Motion is not clear about what the specific disputes are, if any. Bender seems to argue that plaintiff's objections to his written discovery or Rule 30(b)(6) deposition request are somehow improper. Bender, however, does not articulate how and why plaintiff's objections are improper. Bender not only fails to state the full text of plaintiff's objections in his Motion, but his Motion does not contain any analysis and authorities supporting the relevance and propriety of his discovery or rebutting plaintiff's objections. “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).” Garces v. Pickett, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 494438, at *4 (E.D. Cal. March 15, 2021) (internal citations omitted). Bender simply peppers general statements that Rules 30, 33, 34 allow parties to serve interrogatories, requests for documents, and seek depositions. That is not persuasive and does not address plaintiff's objections. C. BENDER'S MOTION IS UNREASONABLY UNTIMELY Courts have discretion to deny discovery when a party fails to act diligently. Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2006). “A party may not unduly delay in moving to compel discovery.... Untimeliness is sufficient ground, standing alone, to deny a discovery motion.” Garcia v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, 332 F.R.D. 351, 354 (D. Nev. 2019) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Bender failed to act diligently, and his Motion is unreasonably untimely. Bender filed his Motion on June 13, 2024. Disputes over Bender's discovery have been pending since December 19, 2023, and the last communication that may be characterized as a “meet and confer” occurred on April 4, 2024. After two extensions, discovery finally closed on April 27, 2024, and the dispositive motion deadline passed on May 27, 2024. See ECF No. 33. While neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor Local Rules expressly provide a deadline for filing motions to compel discovery, “the timeliness of such a motion is left to the exercise of judicial discretion.” Herndon v. City of Henderson, 507 F. Supp. 3d 1243, 1247 (D. Nev. 2020). Our District Court has previously announced guidance regarding the timeliness of motions to compel. Thus, a motion to compel filed before the discovery deadline is generally considered timely. Id. Conversely, “[d]iscovery motions filed after the deadline for dispositive motions are presumptively untimely and such late-filed motions are routinely denied.” Garcia, 332 F.R.D. at 354 (citing numerous District of Nevada authorities). Bender's Motion is therefore presumptively untimely because he filed it on June 13, 2024, after the May 27, 2024, dispositive motion deadline. Neither Bender's Motion nor his reply (ECF No. 40) provide any explanation regarding the timing of his Motion; and more precisely why his Motion is untimely. Cf. LR 26-3 (“A request made after the expiration of the subject deadline will not be granted unless the movant also demonstrates that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.”). Without any explanation from Bender, the record manifests a lack of diligence and unreasonable delay. Again, the disputes at issue arose in December 2023 and the last communication that may be characterized as a “meet and confer” occurred on April 4, 2024.[1] Yet, Bender inexplicably filed his Motion two months later, on June 13, 2024. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Bender's Motion (ECF No. 37) is DENIED. Footnotes [1] “The requirement to meet-and-confer is not an excuse for failing to file a discovery motion in prompt fashion; counsel must diligently conduct those efforts to avoid unnecessary delay.” Garcia, 332 F.R.D. at 355 (citations omitted).