Horne v. Andres N. Bertotto S.A.I.C. et al

Filing 27

ORDER Denying without prejudice 23 Motion for Protective Order and 24 Counter-Motion/Response to Motion. Renewed Motions due by 10/28/2014. Countermotion/Responses due by 11/4/2014. Replies due by 11/10/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/21/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
ORLAN CHARLES HORNE,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
ANDRES N. BERTOTTO S.A.I.C., et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00389-APG-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
COUNTER-MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
(Docket Nos. 23, 24)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant Andres Bertotto S.A.I.C.’s motion for a protective order.

17

Docket No. 23. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 24. Defendant failed to file a reply.

18

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s counter-motion for sanctions. Docket No. 24. Defendant failed to

19

file a response in opposition. For the reasons discussed below, the motion for protective order is hereby

20

DENIED without prejudice and the counter-motion for sanctions is also DENIED without prejudice.

21

This is the second time this motion for protective order has come before the Court. The first time

22
23

it did so, the Court noted, inter alia, that:

26

the grounds on which the motion is based do not appear sufficiently developed. The
primary contention in the motion is that an “apex” deposition is not proper in this case,
but counsel for Defendant Andres Bertotto S.A.I.C. does not even know what position
Sergio Andres Bertotto holds with DEFENDANT. See Docket No. 21 at 3 (“The
relationship to BERTOTTO S.A.I.C. of the deponents is unclear. It is likely that
SERGIO ANDRES BERTOTTO is a board member and CEO. However, their specific
employment relationship is unknown”).

27

Docket No. 22 at 2 n.1. That deficiency remains, as local counsel for Defendant assert that they will not

28

know the position Sergio Andres Bertotto holds with Defendant until Defendant answers Plaintiff’s

24
25

1

discovery requests. See Docket No. 23 at 3. This is ridiculous. The time for obtaining basic

2

information from counsel’s own client is prior to the filing of the motion. Cf. Rule 11(b) (requiring

3

reasonable inquiry prior to filing).1 2

4

Moreover, the other arguments in the moving papers are presented in cursory fashion. For

5

example, Defendant argues that holding the depositions would require significant expense, without any

6

meaningful elaboration. See Docket No. 23 at 6. Such boilerplate assertions are insufficient. Cf.

7

Jackson v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 173 F.R.D. 524, 529 (D. Nev. 1997) (to prevail on an argument

8

for undue burden, the party seeking to avoid discovery must “allege specific facts which indicate the

9

nature and extent of the burden, usually by affidavit or other reliable evidence”). Similarly, Defendant

10

argues that Plaintiff may obtain the information through other, more convenient means without any

11

meaningful elaboration. See Docket No. 23 at 6.3

12

Notwithstanding the deficiencies in Defendant’s motion, however, the Court in its discretion will

13

not deny it outright at this time. In particular, Defendant states that the depositions at issue were set as

14

a means to pressure it into settling this case. See Docket No. 23 at 6. Without citation, Plaintiff appears

15

to admit that the depositions are being used as a vehicle to pressure settlement, stating that “[t]he

16

aggressive pursuit of discovery in order to ‘push the settlement’ is indeed a legitimate purpose of

17

discovery.” Docket No. 24 at 3. This is troubling to the Court. While Plaintiff confidently makes that

18

pronouncement, he provides no citation to any legal authority that discovery may be used to pressure

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court finds unpersuasive local counsel’s assertion that they don’t know what position Mr.
Bertotto holds exactly, but they are confident it is a position for which the “apex” doctrine applies. See
Docket No. 23-1 at ¶ 8. Counsel must obtain basic information from their client prior to filing the
motion and the Court will not rely on such speculation.
2

The motion focuses primarily on Andres Bertotto. Very little attention is provided with respect
to the other deponents. Once again, however, counsel has filed moving papers without basic knowledge
as to those deponents. See Docket No. 23 at 6 (“for Domingo Bertotto and Leticia Bertotto . . . we do
not know their specific role if any with the Defendant”).
3

Nor did Defendant respond to Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant has failed to timely respond
to written discovery that has been propounded. See Docket No. 24 at 7. That failure to rebut that
argument in a reply brief can be deemed a waiver on the issue. See, e.g., Maciel v. Cate, 731 F.3d 928,
932 n.4 (9th Cir. 2013).
2

1

settlement. See id. Moreover, the Supreme Court has expressed concern in allowing discovery to be

2

used as a tool to unfairly pressure settlement. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558-

3

559 (2007).

4

In short, neither party has sufficiently developed their positions to enable the Court to resolve

5

the motion for protective order or the counter-motion for sanctions. Both motions are hereby DENIED

6

without prejudice.4 The Court will provide the parties one last opportunity to sufficiently brief their

7

motions.5 To the extent Defendant continues to seek a protective order, it must file a motion for

8

protective order no later than October 28, 2014. That motion must be supported by specific facts

9

properly submitted to the Court, as well as appropriate legal citation. Any renewed motion without

10

sufficient factual support (e.g., a declaration attesting to the deponents’ positions with Defendant) will

11

be denied outright. Plaintiff’s response and any counter-motion must be filed no later than November

12

4, 2014. Plaintiff’s response and any counter-motion must be supported by sufficient facts, as well as

13

citation to case authority showing that it is proper to notice depositions of foreign nationals for the

14

purpose of pressuring settlement. Defendant shall file any reply and, if a counter-motion is filed, any

15

response no later than November 10, 2014. Any reply to the counter-motion shall be filed no later than

16

November 14, 2014. The Court hereby CAUTIONS Defendant that the failure to respond to any

17

argument through a reply can be construed as forfeiting responsive arguments and that the failure to

18

respond to a counter-motion may be deemed consent to the granting of the counter-motion.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: October 21, 2014

21

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
4

24
25
26
27
28

Although the Court does not rule definitively on the counter-motion for sanctions, the Court
notes that Plaintiff argues that sanctions are appropriate for non-appearance at a deposition when “[n]o
protective order [is] in place.” See Docket No. 24 at 8. That argument is plainly wrong. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(d)(2) (a failure to attend a deposition can be excused where the “party failing to act has a
pending motion for a protective order” (emphasis added)).
5

Of course, counsel is encouraged to confer to attempt to resolve the issue without further Court
involvement.
3