Ruhlmann et al v. Rudolfsky et al

Filing 195

ORDER that Defendants file a proper response to Plaintiffs' 182 Motion to Compel by noon on 5/15/2017. Defendants must also file a separate request to extend the response deadline nunc pro tunc explaining why the Court should consider the motion opposed given that Defendants did not file any response by 5/8/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
MAX RUHLMAN, et al.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
GLENN RUDOLFSKY, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00879-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 193)

16

On April 24, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel and for sanctions, including case-

17

dispositive sanctions. Docket No. 182. On May 11, 2017, Defendants filed a defective response. First,

18

the response is untimely. The Court denied the previous stipulation to extend, and a further request was

19

not made. Instead, Defendants indicate in a footnote that “[a] motion will be filed promptly to extend.”

20

Id. at 1 n.1. The time for seeking an extension to a briefing deadline is before the brief is filed, not after.

21

Second, the response lacks any citation to any legal authority, which the Court may construe in its

22

discretion to be consent to the granting of the motion. See Local Rule 7-2(d). Given the important

23

issues at stake, including possible case-dispositive sanctions, the Court will instead permit Defendants

24

an opportunity to file a proper responsive brief.

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//

1

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to file a proper response to Plaintiffs’

2

motion by noon on Monday, May 15, 2017. Defendants must also file concurrently therewith a separate

3

request to extend the response deadline nunc pro tunc explaining why the Court should consider the

4

motion opposed given that Defendants did not file any response by May 8, 2017.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: May 12, 2017

7
8

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2