Mitchell v. Cox et al

Filing 72

ORDER Denying as moot 66 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court orders Defendants to serve responses to the disputed discovery no later than 1/13/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/12/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
TARZ MITCHELL,

12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

13

On December 11, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel on the grounds that a

8
Plaintiff(s),
9
vs.
10
GREG COX, et al.,
11
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:12-cv-00499-RFB-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT
(Docket No. 66)

14

proper meet-and-confer had not been conducted and that the parties were in the process of

15

attempting to resolve discovery disputes amongst themselves. See Docket No. 65. On December 17,

16

2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration that asserts, inter alia, that Defendants have failed

17

to comply with their discovery obligations. Docket No. 66. On December 18, 2014, Plaintiff and

18

Defendants’ counsel agreed that Defendants would provide responses to the disputed discovery by

19

January 13, 2015. See Docket No. 71 at 2-3 (noting, inter alia, that Defendants’ counsel “has

20

already mailed the Plaintiff amended responses to timely discovery and is finishing up the untimely

21

served discovery and will serve it on or by January 13, 2015”).1

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants failed to timely oppose the instant motion. The Court once again reminds
Defendants and Defendants’ counsel that the failure to file a response in opposition to a motion in a
timely fashion can be deemed consent to the granting of the motion. See Local Rule 7-2(d). In this
instance, the Court issued an order to show cause allowing Defendants to explain why the motion should
not be granted as unopposed. See Docket No. 69. In its discretion, the Court will consider the untimely
arguments presented by Defendants in responding to the order to show cause. See Docket No. 71.
Defendants and their counsel are hereby CAUTIONED that future failure to timely oppose a motion
may result in the Court deeming the motion unopposed without an opportunity to show cause why it
should not be so granted.

1

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED as moot. Per the representations in

2

Defendants’ response, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to serve responses to the disputed

3

discovery no later than January 13, 2015.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: January 12, 2015

6
7

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2