Kraja v. Bellagio, LLC et al

Filing 95

ORDER re 83 Motion for Leave to File. The motion to supplement the request for attorneys' fees is DENIED. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without a hearing, see Local Rule 78-1, and therefore VACATES the hearing set on this motion for 10/4/16. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/21/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
ANDI KRAJA,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
BELLAGIO, LLC, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01983-APG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 83)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to supplement their request for attorneys’ fees

17

to include those fees incurred in responding to Plaintiff’s unsuccessful Rule 72 objection. Docket No.

18

83. Plaintiff filed a response opposing the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 90, 92.

19

The Court finds the motion properly resolved without a hearing, see Local Rule 78-1, and therefore

20

VACATES the hearing set on this motion for October 4, 2016.1 For the reasons discussed below, the

21

motion is hereby DENIED.

22

The Court has discretion to award attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to an objection to a

23

magistrate judge’s order granting a motion to exclude, as those fees were “caused by the failure” to

24

properly disclose. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(A); see also Marrocco v. Hill, 291 F.R.D. 586, 590 (D.

25

Nev. 2013) (finding attorneys’ fees were recoverable for objection to order issued pursuant to Rule

26
27
28

1

The Court is not herein vacating that hearing with respect to the other pending matters that have
been set for hearing on that date.

1

37(a)(5)(A)); General Motors Corp. v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 1240, 1246 (E.D. Wis. 1995)

2

(same under Rule 37(b)(2)); Blair v. CBE Group, Inc., 2014 WL 4658731, *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014)

3

(“District courts have routinely awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37

4

for fees incurred in responding to a Rule 72(a) objection” (collecting cases)). Nonetheless, Defendants

5

are incorrect in asserting that they are “entitled” to those fees as a matter of course because they

6

prevailed in opposing Plaintiff’s objection. See Docket No. 83 at 2. Whether to award attorneys’ fees

7

under Rule 37(c)(1)(A) is a discretionary decision entrusted to the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. 37(c)(1)(A)

8

(in addition to or instead of exclusion sanction, courts “may” order payment of attorneys’ fees); see also

9

Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (district courts have

10

“particularly wide latitude” in exercising their discretion whether to issue sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1)).

11

Defendants have obtained significant relief with respect to the underlying dispute, including exclusion

12

of expert testimony and attorneys’ fees for bringing their motion. See Docket No. 40; see also Docket

13

No. 69 (affirming that order in its entirety). In the circumstances of this case, the Court declines to make

14

a further award of attorneys’ fees with respect to the Rule 72(a) objection.

15

Accordingly, the motion to supplement the request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED: September 21, 2016

18
19

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2