On Demand Direct Response, LLC et al v. McCart-Pollak

Filing 228

ORDER re ECF Nos. #226 , #227 Status Reports : (See pdf order for details and specifics.) 1) Motions re discovery due within 7 days of filing of response to the amended third party complaint.2) Ms. McCart-Pollak's motion for a status conference is DENIED. 3) The status conference set for June 27, 2017 (Docket No. 216 ) is VACATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/25/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
12
13
14
15

ON DEMAND DIRECT RESPONSE, LLC, et al., )
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
SHANA LEE MCCART-POLLAK, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01576-MMD-NJK
ORDER

16

This case was reassigned to the undersigned magistrate judge on January 9, 2017. Docket

17

No. 221. On January 23, 2017, the parties filed status reports. Docket Nos. 226, 227. Having

18

reviewed those status reports and the record, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

19

1) To the extent Third-Party Defendant Harrington seeks a stay of discovery, he must file a

20

motion to stay within 7 days of responding to the amended third party complaint. To the

21

extent Counterdefendant On Demand seeks a stay of discovery, it must also file its own

22

motion to stay discovery by that same date. Such motions must address in meaningful

23

fashion the standards applicable to staying discovery pending resolution of a dispositive

24

motion. See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).1

25
26
27
28

1

To the extent On Demand seeks a stay without itself filing a dispositive motion, it must
separately address why a stay of discovery is appropriately extended to it. Cf. White v. Am. Tobacco,
125 F.R.D. 508, 509 (D. Nev. 1989) (not staying discovery with respect to defendant who had not
filed or joined pending dispositive motion).

1

In the event a motion to stay discovery is filed, discovery with respect to the movant(s) shall

2

be stayed pending resolution of the motion to stay except with respect to the initial

3

disclosures already ordered by Judge Ferenbach. In the event a motion to stay discovery is

4

not filed, the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery plan within 20 days of Harrington’s

5

response to the amended third party complaint.

6

2) Ms. McCart-Pollak’s motion for a status conference is DENIED. To the extent she

7

believes the initial disclosures provided to date are insufficient, she must comply with the

8

rules requiring a pre-filing conference with opposing counsel and the filing of a written

9

motion seeking relief. To the extent she would like to advise the Court of her positions

10

regarding the impropriety of staying discovery and/or a schedule for discovery, such issues

11

are better addressed in writing in responding to any motion to stay discovery and/or in any

12

proposed discovery plan.

13

3) The status conference set for June 27, 2017 (Docket No. 216) is VACATED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: January 25, 2017

16
17

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-