Searcy v. Esurance Insurance Company

Filing 41

ORDER Denying without Prejudice 29 Motion for Protective Order and 32 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/29/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 ROSALIND SEARCY, 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 v. 13 ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:15-cv-0047-APG-NJK ORDER (Docket Nos. 29, 32) 16 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for protective order regarding its Rule 30(b)(6) 17 deposition noticed by Plaintiff. Docket No. 29. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s counter- 18 motion for sanctions. Docket No. 32. On September 17, 2015, United States District Judge Andrew 19 P. Gordon granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss and provided Plaintiff with 30 days to file an amended 20 complaint. Docket No. 38. In light of Judge Gordon’s order, the motion for protective order and motion 21 for sanctions are hereby DENIED without prejudice. 22 To the extent the parties believe resolving the dispute concerning the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition 23 becomes necessary, they may bring that dispute back to the Court’s attention for resolution. In the event 24 the parties both believe the briefing is already sufficient to enable a decision by the Court, the parties 25 shall file a stipulation seeking a determination by the Court based on the briefing already filed. In the 26 event the parties believe the changed procedural posture necessitates new briefing, the Defendant may 27 // 28 // 1 file a renewed motion to be briefed anew. If that renewed motion is denied, then Plaintiff may renew 2 her motion for sanctions. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: September 29, 2015 5 6 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 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?