Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC v. Galam et al
Filing
176
ORDER that 175 Motion for Clarification is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/25/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
RUSSELL ROAD FOOD AND
BEVERAGE, LLC,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
MIKE GALAM, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:13-cv-00776-RFB-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION
(Docket No. 175)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “emergency” motion for clarification. Docket No.
17
175. This motion is purportedly brought in lieu of a motion to compel as a means to “avoid motion
18
practice.” See id. at 4. Moreover, the motion is brought on an emergency basis in light of Plaintiff’s
19
indication that it would like resolution of the issue prior to August 29, 2014, which Plaintiff asserts
20
is the general deadline for filing motions to compel. See id. at 6.1 In short, Plaintiff seeks an order
21
indicating that Defendants must respond to certain interrogatories, but believes that it may bypass the
22
normal procedures for seeking such relief by captioning its motion as one for “clarification” of the
23
Court’s earlier order. To the extent Plaintiff wants to compel answers to interrogatories, it should
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court expresses no opinion herein as to the “deadline” for filing such a motion to compel.
The Court is mindful that it approved the parties’ prior stipulation that motions to compel related to
enumerated depositions may be filed up to August 29, 2014, see Docket No. 166 at 4, but that stipulation
did not establish a deadline for any other types of motions to compel. Moreover, that stipulation
extended the discovery period only as to depositions, see id. at 3, so the discovery period with respect to
interrogatories appears to have expired almost three months ago, on May 31, 2014, see id. at 2.
1
file a proper motion to compel in compliance with the required procedures, including a proper meet
2
and confer. Attempting to obtain the same relief through the pending “emergency motion for
3
clarification” neither avoids motion practice nor establishes the basis for deciding the issue on an
4
expedited basis. Accordingly, the Court finds the pending motion improper and DENIES it without
5
prejudice.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
DATED: August 25, 2014
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
2
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?