Kwasniewski et al v. sanofi-aventis U.S., LLC et al

Filing 138

ORDER Denying without prejudice 137 Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC's Motion for Court Order Permitting Production of Records. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/17/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JENNIFER KWASNIEWSKI, et al.

10
Plaintiffs,
11
vs.
12
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC., et al.,
13
14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK

ORDER

15
16

Before the Court is Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC’s Motion for Court Order Permitting

17

Production of Records (Docket No. 137). The Court has considered Defendant’s motion and finds

18

there is no need for a response. Further, the Court finds this motion appropriately resolved without

19

oral argument. Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion is hereby

20

DENIED without prejudice.

21

I.

FAILURE TO CITE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

22

Defendant seeks a Court order “authorizing the release of Mr. Kwasnieski’s employment

23

records from Morgans and Hard Rock.” Docket No. 137, at 9. Defendant has not, however, cited

24

a single case or statute to support its request. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), “[t]he failure of a

25

moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion shall constitute a consent to the

26

denial of the motion.” LR 7-2. Accordingly, Defendant has consented to the denial of its motion.

27

Further, to the extent Defendant’s motion was intended to be a motion to compel, Defendant

28

failed to provide the text or responses to any of its written discovery requests. Local Rule 26-7(a)

1

states that “[a]ll motions to compel discovery or for protective order shall set forth in full the text

2

of the discovery originally sought and the response thereto, if any.” LR 26-7(a). Therefore, by not

3

providing the complete text of any discovery request, Defendant’s motion fails to comply with the

4

Local Rules. Additionally, the Court cannot determine that a particular response to a request for

5

discovery was improper without knowing what request was made or what response was given.

6

II.

CONCLUSION

7

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC’s Motion for Court

9
10

Order Permitting Production of Records (Docket No. 137) is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED: March 17, 2014.

11
12
13
14

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-