Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Services, Inc. et al

Filing 934

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 926 Emergency Motion for an Expedited Briefing Schedule is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 933 Motion for Leave to File Surreply is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 2/22/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

6
7

vs.
AMG SERVICES, INC., et al.,

8

Defendants.

2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR AN EXPEDITED BRIEFING
SCHEDULE REGARDING THE TUCKER
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY (#926)

9

Before the court is an Emergency Motion (#926) in which the Tucker Defendants request an
10

expedited schedule for briefing their Motion to Stay the Case in Deference to the SDNY’s Parallel
11

Criminal Case filed on February 10, 2016 against Scott Tucker (#932).
12

On December 9, 2015, Judge Navarro set a briefing schedule for Phase 2 Dispositive Motions
13

(#897). Three summary judgment motions are now pending and require briefing according to that
14

schedule:
15
16

1.

Defendants Park 269 LLC and Kim C. Tucker’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#900)
filed on January 19, 2016;

18

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#907) filed on January 20, 2016; and

19

3.

Tucker Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#913) filed on January 20, 2016, with
supporting Declaration and Exhibits (#914) filed on January 21, 2016.

17

20
21

Additionally, on January 19, 2016, because Park 269 LLC and Kim C. Tucker combined their

22

Motion for Summary Judgment with a Motion for Discovery Sanctions, the same motion appeared on the

23

docket twice. Once as #899, a Motion for Discovery Sanctions and again as #900 as a Motion for

24

Summary Judgment. The discovery sanctions motion is subject to the same briefing schedule. (#919).

25

1

The Proposed Order submitted with the Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule (#926-2), in

2

addition to setting a briefing schedule as requested in the motion, also provides that briefing set in Judge

3

Navarro’s December 9, 2015, Order (#897) is “suspended.” That relief was not expressly requested in the

4

motion, although there is an assertion that “good cause exists to continue the briefing schedule on the

5

parties’ motions for summary judgment.” (#926, p. 3).

6

As expressed in the Declaration of Nick J. Kurt (#926-1), the Tucker Defendants maintain that

7

“absent the requested relief . . . the Tucker defendants will essentially provide the Department of Justice

8

a road map of Scott Tucker’s planned Criminal Defense,” when they file a timely briefs in support of their

9

motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In their

10

reply (#931) the Tucker Defendants restate their request for a stay of the case as “based on the fact that

11

the Tucker Defendants are now definitively forced to lay out (for the first time) a defense in this civil

12

matter that will provide the Department of Justice with a roadmap to Mr. Tucker’s defense in the criminal

13

case.” (#931, p.2)

14

After reviewing the briefing with respect to the instant motion and The Tucker Defendants’ Motion

15

for Stay, I conclude that suspension of the briefing ordered by Judge Navarro is not warranted. This case

16

has been pending for almost four years. There are over 900 docket entries. When the Tucker Defendants

17

file their briefs due on February 26, 2016 and March 18, 2016, it is unlikely that previously undisclosed

18

facts or arguments will be brought to light. The Tucker defendants and their counsel can weigh the

19

potential benefits and consequences inherent in any filings prepared in this context. Mr. Tucker has,

20

through the use of his Fifth Amendment privilege, navigated these issues throughout the pendency of this

21

case and the ongoing parallel criminal investigation. The filing of a criminal indictment now provides

22

him with further guidance as to his jeopardy in that action. This is not a reason to delay the resolution of

23

this case.

24
25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Emergency Motion for an Expedited Briefing
Schedule Regarding the Tucker Defendants’ Motion to Stay (#926) is DENIED.

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s Motion for Leave to

2

File Surreply in Opposition to Tucker Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Expedite (#933) is GRANTED.

3

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2016.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE