Le et al v. Zuffa, LLC

Filing 442

ORDER re 436 , 437 Letters. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs are authorized to serve a subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to secure the testimony of Matt Hume, and obtain discoverable documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/29/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
    1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 CUNG LE, et al., 8 9 10 11 12 13 v. Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Plaintiffs, ORDER (Letters – ECF Nos. 436, 437) ZUFFA, LLC, et al., Defendants. Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Letter Regarding Clarification (ECF No. 436), and Defendants’ Letter in Response (ECF No. 437). 14 At the June 1, 2017 status and dispute resolution conference the court granted plaintiffs’ 15 request for a 60-day extension of the discovery deadline extending fact discovery until July 31, 16 2017. The court also granted defendants’ request to impose some limitations on the amount and 17 type of discovery the plaintiffs could conduct. The hearing lasted for nearly 3 hours. The 18 courtroom administrator reduced the court’s rulings to a short summary. A 117-page hearing 19 transcript memorializes exactly what the court ruled. However, the court is informed that, although 20 provided with excerpts of the hearing transcript, counsel for non-party Matt Hume has stated that 21 “If you wish to serve Mr. Hume with a subpoena or a subpoena duces tecum, you will first need 22 to seek clarification or reconsideration of the Minute Order.” To take this position after seeing 23 what the court actually said suggests counsel either lacks sufficient litigation experience to 24 recognize that a Minute Order is a brief summary prepared by a court clerk, or that counsel is being 25 deliberately obstreperous. The position taken that apparently necessitates this order has interrupted 26 the court’s work on matters for other litigants waiting their turn for decisions, and is frankly 27 disrespectful. To foreclose any further need for “reconsideration” or “clarification,” yes, counsel, 28 the court authorized service of a subpoena and subpoena duces tecum on Matt Hume. If counsel’s 1     1 intention was to delay or prevent the discovery from going forward by the passage of the time it 2 would take the court to consider the matter, the tactic will fail. If necessary, the court will grant 3 plaintiffs an extension of time to obtain this discovery. 4 Having reviewed and considered the matter, 5 IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs are authorized to serve a subpoena and subpoena duces 6 7 tecum to secure the testimony of Matt Hume, and obtain discoverable documents. DATED this 29th day of June, 2017. 8 9 PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?