United States

Filing 40

ORDER Granting 38 Motion to Compel. Defendant Bill Sunga Modina, d/b/a 5M Financial and 6M Financial has until Friday, March 15, 2024 to answer the plaintiff's discovery requests. Clerk status check on 3/15/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III on 2/23/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

United States of America,

2:14-cv-00474-JAD-MDC

Plaintiff(s),
vs.

Order granting motion to compel (ECF No. 38)

Bill Sunga Modina, d/b/a 5M Financial and 6M
Financial,
Defendant(s).
The Court has reviewed plaintiff United States of America’s motion to compel discovery. ECF No.
38. The Court grants the motion on the merits. The Court also grants the motion because plaintiff did not
oppose the motion. Per LR 7-3(d), ‘[t]he failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support
of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.” Id.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff United States of America’s motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED.
2. Defendant Bill Sunga Modina, d/b/a 5M Financial and 6M Financial has until Friday, March
15, 2024 to answer the plaintiff’s discovery requests.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and
recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk
of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal
may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified
time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections
within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the

1
2

right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court.
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452,

3

454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written notification with the

4

court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s

5

attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this

6

rule may result in dismissal of the action.

7
8

Dated this 23rd day of February 2024.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

_________________________
Maximiliano D. Couvillier III
United States Magistrate Judge