Copper Sands Homeowners Association, Inc. et al v. Copper Sands Realty, LLC et al

Filing 640

ORDER re 631 Renewed Motion in Support of Motion to Set Aside. Defendant shall file a renewed motion to set aside no later than 10/24/2013. Plaintiffs shall file a response to that renewed motion no later than 10/29/2013. Defendant shall file rep ly no later than 11/1/13. To the extent 631 Defendant's opening brief constitutes a renewed motion to set aside, is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/21/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9

COPPER SANDS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Plaintiff(s),

10
11

vs.

12

COPPER SANDS REALTY, LLC, et al.,

13

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:10-cv-00510-GMN-NJK
ORDER

(Docket No. 631)

14
15

On September 18, 2013, United States District Judge Gloria M. Navarro determined that

16

Magistrate Judge Johnston “failed to apply controlling case law from the Nevada Supreme Court” in

17

granting Defendant’s motion to set aside Plaintiffs’ privilege assertions. See Docket No. 623. In

18

particular, Judge Navarro determined that the controlling case law on the issue of an “at-issue

19

waiver” of the attorney-client privilege is Wardleigh v. Second Judicial District Court, 891 P.2d

20

1180 (Nev. 1995). Judge Navarro granted Plaintiffs’ objections to Judge Johnston’s order and

21

referred the issue to the undersigned for reconsideration of Defendant’s Motion to set aside

22

Plaintiffs’ assertion of privilege in light of the standard announced in Wardleigh.

23

The undersigned then held a status conference to discuss, inter alia, the most efficient

24

manner for reconsidering Defendant’s motion to set aside in light of the order from Judge Navarro.

25

The Court ordered the parties to re-brief the motion. To the extent that it was unclear, the Court’s

26

intent was for the parties to present the relevant standards and arguments in one set of briefing based

27

on controlling case law. The Court now has before it the supplemental briefing. See Docket Nos.

28

631, 638, 639. Unfortunately, it appears that Plaintiffs’ brief addresses only the “recent arguments

1

made by Cannon.” See Docket No. 638 at 2-3. As such, it appears that Plaintiffs rely on arguments

2

made in previous briefing to Judges Navarro and Johnston that are not explicitly addressed in the

3

pending briefing. The Court declines to review several sets of previous briefs in an attempt to

4

decipher Plaintiffs’ arguments, especially since Plaintiffs’ briefing to Judge Johnston did not discuss

5

or cite Wardleigh. See Docket No. 564.

6

In light of the above, the Court hereby orders as follows:

7

(1) Defendant shall file a renewed motion to set aside Plaintiffs’ assertion of privilege, no

8

later than October 24, 2013;

9

(2) Plaintiffs shall file a response to that renewed motion, no later than October 29, 2013;

10

and

11

(3) Defendant shall file a reply, no later than November 1, 2013.

12

This briefing shall be comprehensive of all of the issues currently before the Court for its

13

consideration. The briefing shall not rely on prior briefing to Judges Navarro or Johnston, but

14

instead it shall explicitly detail all arguments the parties deem germane for the undersigned’s

15

consideration, citation and discussion of the relevant case law, and citation, discussion and

16

attachment of any support from the record.

17
18

To the extent Defendant’s opening brief (Docket No. 631) constitutes a renewed motion to
set aside Plaintiffs’ assertion of privilege, it is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: October 21, 2013

21
22

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2