Summary
upholding district court's award of attorney's fees resulting from denial of movant's discovery motion for failure to “meet and confer[]” as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Summary of this case from Hattrick v. City of KetchikanOpinion
No. 09-16427.
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2010.
Filed October 29, 2010.
Michael V. Cristalli, Robert J. Flummer-felt, Esquire, Cristalli Saggese, Allen Lichtenstein, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Peter Maitland Angulo, Esquire, Olson, Cannon, Gormley Desruisseaux, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court District of Nevada, James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:05-cv-0533-JCM-RJJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appellant Joe Dague appeals the District Court's denial of reconsideration of the magistrate's order awarding attorney's fees to appellees. The standard of review is abuse of discretion. See United States v. Sumitomo Marine Fire Ins. Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980).
Based on the record, the magistrate did not abuse his discretion by holding that the correspondence via mail between the parties did not satisfy the "meet and confer" requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) and D. Nev. R. 26-7(b). See Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D.Nev. 1996) Upon denying the motion to compel, it was within the magistrate's discretion to award attorney fees to appellees under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the reconsideration of the magistrate's order. The appellee's request for attorney's fees on the appeal is denied because the appeal is not frivolous.