Hakkasan LV, LLC et al v. Adamczyk et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 29 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 2/17/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/2/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
HAKKASAN LV, LLC, et al.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
MARK DANIEL ADAMCZYK, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01717-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 29)

16

This case is not off to a good start. On January 21, 2015, the Court ordered Defendant Mark

17

Daniel Adamczyk (“Defendant”) to contact Plaintiffs’ counsel to arrange a time and date to hold the

18

Rule 26(f) conference, and to participate in the preparing of a proposed discovery plan. See Docket No.

19

28. Defendant and Plaintiffs’ counsel arranged a date and time to hold the Rule 26(f) conference, but it

20

never materialized because Plaintiffs’ counsel waited for Defendant to call her conference call

21

telephone line while Defendant waited for Plaintiffs’ counsel to call him. See Docket No. 29. During

22

the interim, Defendant and Plaintiffs’ counsel exchanged numerous emails that fell below the standard

23

of conduct the Court expects of parties proceeding pro se and attorneys. The Court does not condone

24

the use of disrespectful language, nor does it condone the use of the discovery process as an attempt to

25

score litigation points with a game of “gotcha.”

26

The Court begins by reminding the parties and counsel that “[o]bstructive refusal to make

27

reasonable accommodation . . . not only impairs the civility of our profession and the pleasures of the

28

practice of law, but also needlessly increases litigation expense to clients.” Hauser v. Farrell, 14 F.3d

1

1338, 1344 (9th Cir. 1994). That is especially true in the discovery context, as “[d]iscovery is supposed

2

to proceed with minimal involvement of the Court.” F.D.I.C. v. 26 Flamingo, LLC, 2013 WL 3975006,

3

*8 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2013) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)). “It is

4

regrettable that counsel for the parties and/or the parties themselves have so much difficulty cooperating

5

with discovery and the Court is often called upon to spell out detailed rights and responsibilities.” Id.

6

This case is early in the proceedings, and the Court expects the parties and counsel to better cooperate

7

as the case moves forward and to proceed with civility toward one another.

8
9

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for an order for Defendant to show cause why he
should not be held in contempt. See Docket No. 29. That motion is hereby DENIED without

10

prejudice. With the above admonishment in mind, the Court instead will again order that Defendant

11

and Plaintiffs’ counsel proceed with holding the Rule 26(f) conference and filing a joint proposed

12

discovery plan. The parties shall arrange for and hold the Rule 26(f) conference no later than February

13

9, 2015, and shall file a joint proposed discovery plan no later than February 17, 2015.

14

Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant shall anticipate that the failure to comply with this order

15

will result in the imposition of sanctions. In the event that both Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant

16

fail to comply with the spirit and letter of this order, they should anticipate that the Court will

17

impose a court fine on them both.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: February 2, 2015

20
21

________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2