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)

Download PDF
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?