Marquis Aurbach Coffing v. Dorfman et al

Filing 55

ORDER that 52 Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/5/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING, P.C.,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
TERRY DORFMAN, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00701-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL
(Docket No. 52)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Compel. Docket No. 52. For the

17 reasons stated below, this motion is DENIED without prejudice.
18

On January 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion to Compel. Docket No. 41. On

19 January 15, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion. Docket No. 43. The Court found that Plaintiff
20 had failed to demonstrate that an adequate meet and confer occurred between the parties. Id. at 2-3. The
21 Court further denied Plaintiff’s request for emergency relief, as Plaintiff waited more than two months
22 after the document production to file its motion on essentially the eve of the deposition for which it
23 claimed it needed the documents. Id. at 4.
24

On February 5, 2016, Plaintiff refiled exactly the same motion it filed previously. Docket No.

25 52. This motion, like the earlier one, is dated January 14, 2016, and asks the Court to decide it on an
26 emergency basis because Plaintiff needs a document production prior to the deposition scheduled for
27 January 26, 2016. Id. at 2. The Court is unable to discern any difference between the current motion
28

1 and the one it denied on January 15, 2016. See Docket Nos. 41, 52.1
2

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Court’s order of January 15, 2016 at Docket No. 43,

3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s refiled motion to compel, Docket No. 52, is DENIED without

4 prejudice.
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: February 5, 2016.

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
1

The Court also notes that Plaintiff redacted parts of its motion to compel and filed two of its exhibits
26 under seal, without filing a motion to seal or notification that the Court has already approved these
27 particular redactions and/or the sealing of these particular exhibits. Further, Plaintiff has failed to file an
unredacted version of its motion under seal. To the extent Plaintiff files a renewed motion to compel, it
28 must fix these deficiencies.
2