“Meet and Confer” Not Required Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A) authorizes sanctions for failure to comply with a court order.  In Mirae Asset Securities Co., Ltd. v. Ryze Renewables Holdings, LLC, 2026 WL 1298156 (D. Nev. May 12, 2026), defendants sought sanctions under that Rule.  One issue was whether a party moving for sanctions under that Rule is required to “meet and confer” with the opponent before filing a motion for sanctions.  The Mirae court held that there is no such requirement because a Rule 37(b)(2)(A) motion is not a discovery motion.

District of Nevada Local Rule 26-6(c) states:  “Discovery motions will not be considered unless the movant (1) has made a good faith effort to meet and confer as defined in LR IA 1-3(f) 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.” [emphasis added].  LR IA 1-3(f) defines the term “meet and confer.”  It states: “Failure to make a good-faith effort to meet and confer before filing any motion to which the requirement applies may result in denial of the motion.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A) states: “For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party’s officer, director, or managing agent–or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)–fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders.”  The Rule provides a non-exhaustive list of authorized orders.

The Mirae court noted its broad discretion over discovery and added: “Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court…. Counsel should strive to be cooperative, practical and sensible, and should seek judicial intervention only in extraordinary situations that implicate truly significant interests.” Id. at *1 (cleaned up). It added:

It is a foundational aspect of federal litigation that orders are not suggestions or recommendations, but rather they are directives with which compliance is mandatory…. Quite plainly, all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly…, and no judge tolerates a disregard of court orders….”

Id. (cleaned up). The court wrote that: “The very purpose of Rule 37 is to ensure compliance with discovery orders.” Id. at *3 (cleaned up).

The “meet and confer” issue was explained as follows:

Defendants asserted failure to comply with a court order.

“Plaintiff submits that the instant motion should be denied because it is not a Rule 37(b) motion; rather, it is a discovery motion to which the meet-and-confer requirements apply, and Defendants failed to properly meet and confer before filing.”

“Defendants contend that Rule 37(b) sanctions do not require pre-filing conferral and, even if conferral were required, Defendants invited conferral several times and Plaintiff did not respond.”

The decision was:

The Court finds that, since Defendants’ motion is a Rule 37(b) motion, the meet-and-confer requirement does not apply. See Tomahawk Mfg., Inc. v. Spherical Indus., Inc., 2026 WL 74044, at *2 n.3 (D. Nev. Jan. 8, 2026)).

Id. at *4.