Rood v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. concerned a defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses from a plaintiff. All that is known is Plaintiff’s responses were deficient. The decision is discussed here only because the court decided the motion based upon authority so powerful, it likely left the plaintiff as speechless as James Carville at the end of his debate in Old School.
Tantamount to the schoolyard comeback of “I know you are, but what am I,” see, e.g., Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (Warner Bros. 1985), Plaintiff provides no justification for his own discovery responses and, instead, points to aspects of Defendant’s discovery responses that Plaintiff contends are similar. Plaintiff cites no legal authority standing for the proposition that he need not provide discovery that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based solely on purported discovery violations by the opposing party. The discovery rules do not envision this kind of playground tantrum.The Pee Wee citation is insurmountable by any other legal authority presently known to exist. It is the triple dog dare of the legal industry. Obviously the motion to compel was granted.  No. 2:16-cv-02586, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110332 (D. Nev. July 2, 2018).