Lauer v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 27

ORDER that the Ex Parte Motions filed at Docket Nos. 23 , 24 , and 25 are STRICKEN. The motions filed publicly earlier at Docket Nos. 20 , 21 , and 22 will remain pending. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/15/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM) Modified text to reflect correct Judge on 4/16/2015 (RFJ).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10

ROBERT LESLIE LAUER,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

v.

13

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT,

14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00326-LDG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 23-25)

16

On April 13, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to refile his request for relief in

17

a manner that complied with this Court’s rules. Docket No. 19. Plaintiff then filed three motions that

18

comply with the Local Rules regarding double-spacing and page limitation. Docket Nos. 20-22. Now

19

before the Court is Plaintiff’s filing of the same motions in ex parte form along with a “notice of errata.”

20

Docket Nos. 23-26. Plaintiff asserts cryptically that “[t]he Court had Ordered [the motions] to be filed

21

as Ex Parte Motions.” Docket No. 26 at 1. The undersigned did not order that Plaintiff should seek

22

relief through the filing of ex parte motions. Cf. Docket No. 19 (court order requiring refiling of request

23

for relief that does not specify the manner in which the relief should be requested). Moreover, the filing

24

of ex parte motions is disfavored. See, e.g., In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 192-93

25

(C.D. Cal. 1989). As such, parties may file documents on an ex parte basis only upon a showing of

26

“compelling reasons,” Local Rule 7-5(c), which has not been made in this case. Accordingly, the ex

27

parte motions filed at Docket Nos. 23-25 are hereby STRICKEN. The motions filed publicly earlier

28

at Docket Nos. 20-22 will remain pending.

1

Plaintiff’s recent errata also indicates that “[i]t would appear that all briefing is complete at this

2

time and there is no need for Defendants to respond to the Motions filed as Miscellaneous Relief.”

3

Docket No. 26 at 2. The briefing is not complete. The Court specifically ordered that Plaintiff file a

4

proper motion that complies with the rules of this Court and that the briefing would then proceed anew

5

pursuant to the schedule set by the Local Rules. See Docket No. 19 at 2. Accordingly, the Court expects

6

the filing of responses and replies pursuant to the schedule outlined by the Local Rules. Cf. Local Rule

7

7-2.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: April 15, 2015

10
11
12

______________________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

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