Janix, Inc. v. Raes, et. al.
Filing
18
ORDER Denying without prejudice 16 Ex Parte Motion to Stay Requirement to File Discovery Plan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/20/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
***
11
JANIX, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
JOEL RAES and CONSUELA KONI RAES,
15
16
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:12-cv-02084-GMN-NJK
ORDER
17
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Stay Requirement to File Disocovery
18
Plan (#16), filed on May 20, 2013.
19
BACKGROUND
20
On December 6, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a complaint and amended complaint in this
21
matter alleging embezzlement by its former website manager. On April 5, 2013, the Defendants
22
filed a motion to dismiss. That motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May 2, 2013, and is still
23
pending. To date, the parties have not filed a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order as
24
required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. The Rule 26(f) conference was required to be held within 30 days
25
of April 5, 2013, when the first Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, and the stipulated
26
discovery plan was due 14 days thereafter. See Local Rule 26-1(d). Thus, the final date to submit
27
the proposed discovery plan and scheduling order was May 20, 2013.
28
1
Instead of filing a discovery plan, however, according to the Plaintiff, the parties have
2
recently agreed to submit to arbitration on this matter. The Plaintiff anticipates that a stipulation
3
to arbitrate will be submitted to the Court within two weeks of May 20, 2013. For this reason, the
4
Plaintiff requests that the Court allow the parties to submit their stipulation concerning
5
arbitration in lieu of a discovery plan. The Plaintiff has filed this request as an ex parte motion.1
6
DISCUSSION
7
“When an ex parte motion is filed . . . [t]he judge drops everything except other urgent
8
matters to study the papers. It is assumed that . . . all will be lost unless immediate action is
9
taken.” Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 491-92 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
10
“Lawyers must understand that filing an ex parte motion, whether of the pure or hybrid type, is
11
the forensic equivalent of standing in a crowded theater and shouting, ‘Fire!’ There had better be
12
a fire.” Id. Accordingly, courts are highly sensitive to unwarranted ex parte motions. Id.
13
Rule 7–5 of the Local Rules of Practice states, “[a]ll ex parte motions, applications or
14
requests shall contain a statement showing good cause why the matter was submitted to the Court
15
without notice to all parties, [and] applications or requests may be submitted ex parte only for
16
compelling reasons, and not for unopposed or emergency motions.” LR 7-5(b)-(c) (emphasis
17
added). In order to show that ex parte relief is necessary, “[f]irst, the evidence must show that the
18
moving party's cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to
19
regular noticed motion procedures.” Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp.
20
488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
21
“A sliding scale is used to measure the threat of prejudice. If the threatened prejudice
22
would not be severe, then it must be apparent that the underlying motion has a high likelihood of
23
success on the merits. If drastic harm is threatened, then it is sufficient to show that there are
24
close issues that justify the court's review before the party suffers the harm.” Id.
25
26
27
28
1
The motion contains a certification that it was served via Nevada’s CM/ECF “which will
send notification of such filing and constitute e-service of same to Defendants’ counsel of record in
this case.” Docket. No. 16, at 3. Since counsel filed this motion ex parte, however, this certification
is inaccurate. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a separate certification indicating that the motion was
served via U.S. Mail. Docket No. 17.
-2-
1
Here, the Plaintiff failed to show good cause why this motion was submitted to the Court
2
as an ex parte motion. See LR 7-5(b). The Plaintiff does not even attempt to argue that it will be
3
irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion
4
procedures. Rather, the Plaintiff states that the Defendants have agreed to arbitration and that the
5
parties will be filing a stipulation shortly. If both parties wish to stay this case pending their
6
formal stipulation to arbitrate, the correct manner to make this request is a stipulation to stay.2
7
The present motion to stay simply does not establish that the Plaintiff will be irreparably
8
prejudiced if its motion is heard on the regular motion calendar.
9
Additionally, the Court notes that the parties did not properly meet and confer prior to the
10
filing of this motion. LR 26-7(b) provides that a “[d]iscovery motion will not be considered
11
unless a statement of the movant is attached thereto certifying that, after personal consultation
12
and sincere effort to do so, the parties have not been able to resolve the matter without Court
13
action. LR 26-7. Personal consultation means the movant must “personally engage in two-way
14
communication with the nonresponding party to meaningfully discuss each contested discovery
15
dispute in a genuine effort to avoid judicial intervention.” ShuffleMaster, Inc. V. Progressive
16
Games, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166, 171 (D. Nev. 1996). Meaningful discussion means the parties must
17
present the merits of their respective positions and assess the relative strengths of each. See
18
Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd. v. Mayah Collections, Inc., 2007 WL 1726558, *11 (D. Nev. June
19
11, 2007). Here, the Plaintiff failed to indicate what efforts, if any, were made to meet and confer
20
prior to filing this ex parte motion.
21
Accordingly, the parties should properly meet and confer on this issue and try to reach an
22
agreement on this matter. However, if no agreement can be reached, the Plaintiff may re-file this
23
motion as a noticed motion and, upon a showing of good cause, may request an expedited
24
briefing schedule.
25
...
26
...
27
2
28
Stipulations to stay are subject to the requirements articulated in Tradebay, LLC v. eBay,
Inc., 278 F.R.D 597(D. Nev. 2011).
-3-
1
CONCLUSION
2
Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Stay Requirement to File
4
5
Disocovery Plan (#16) is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this
20th
day of May, 2013
6
7
8
9
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?