Bartech Systems International, Inc. v. Mobile Simple Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 225

ORDER vacating the deposition of Defendant Pigeat; directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendat's ECF No. 223 Motion for Protective Order by 2/13/2017 - Reply due by 2/15/2017; directing Clerk to serve this order on Defendant Pigeat via e-mail (sent 2/8/2017). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/8/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 12 13 14 15 16 BARTECH SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) vs. ) ) MOBILE SIMPLE SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., ) ) Defendant(s). ) ) Case No. 2:15-cv-02422-MMD-NJK ORDER 17 18 Pending before the Court is a motion for protective order filed by Defendant Pigeat on an 19 emergency basis. Docket No. 223. The motion relates to a deposition scheduled to take place on 20 February 9, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada. See id. at 53. Defendant Pigeat submits that she is 21 financially unable to travel to Las Vegas, and has tried unsuccessfully to convince Plaintiff to hold 22 the deposition in a location closer to her home in Canada. See id. at 4-6. 23 “The filing of emergency motions is disfavored because of the numerous problems they 24 create for the opposing party and the court resolving them.” Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc.,141 25 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1140 (D. Nev. 2015) (citing In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193-194 26 (C.D. Cal. 1989)). “Safeguards that have evolved over many decades are built into the Federal Rules 27 of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this court.” Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 28 883 F. Supp. 488, 491 (C.D. Cal. 1995). A request to bypass the default procedures through the 1 filing of an emergency motion impedes the adversarial process, disrupts the schedules of the Court 2 and opposing counsel, and creates an opportunity for bad faith gamesmanship. Cardoza,141 F. 3 Supp. 2d at 1140-41. As a result, the Court allows motions to proceed on an emergency basis in only 4 very limited circumstances. 5 Emergency motions must as a threshold matter meet several technical requirements outlined 6 in the local rules. First, the face of the motion itself must be entitled an “Emergency Motion” so the 7 Court has prompt notice that expedited relief is being requested. Local Rule 7-4(a). Second, the 8 emergency motion must be accompanied by an affidavit providing several key facts necessary for 9 the Court to determine whether, in fact, an emergency exists and allowing the Court to provide the 10 fairest, most efficient resolution. Id. This affidavit must include a detailed description of the nature 11 of the emergency. See id. The affidavit must also provide the contact information (telephone 12 number and office addresses) of the movant and all other affected parties. See id. As with any 13 discovery motion, the affidavit must also provide a certification that, despite personal consultation 14 and sincere effort to do so, the movant was unable to resolve the matter without court action. See 15 id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).1 If the circumstances are such that personal consultation is 16 truly not possible, the movant must provide a detailed explanation why that is the case so the Court 17 can evaluate whether to exercise its discretion to decide the motion despite the lack of a proper pre- 18 filing conference. Similarly, if no notice whatsoever was provided to the opposing party regarding 19 the filing of the motion, the affidavit must include a detailed explanation of why it was not 20 practicable to provide that notice. See Local Rule 7-4(a). 21 If these technical requirements are met, the Court will turn to the substantive requirements 22 for filing an emergency motion. When a party files a motion on an emergency basis, it is within the 23 24 1 27 The purportedly emergency nature of a discovery dispute does not obviate the requirement to conduct a proper meet-and-confer. See, e.g., Cardoza, 2015 WL 6123192, at *3 (citing Goben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26773, *3-4 (D. Nev. Feb. 27, 2013)). “To the contrary, a good faith and thorough attempt to resolve the dispute without Court intervention is even more critical when time is of the essence.” Id. 28 2 25 26 1 sole discretion of the Court to determine whether any such matter is, in fact, an emergency. Local 2 Rule 7-4(d). Generally speaking, an emergency motion is properly presented to the Court only when 3 the movant has shown (1) that it will be irreparably prejudiced if the Court resolves the motion 4 pursuant to the normal briefing schedule and (2) that the movant is without fault in creating the crisis 5 that requires emergency relief or, at the very least, that the crisis occurred because of excusable 6 neglect. Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 2d. at 1142 (citing Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. at 492). If there 7 is no irreparable prejudice, sufficient justification for bypassing the default briefing schedule does 8 not exist and the motion may be properly decided on a non-expedited basis. Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 9 2d at 1142. 10 In this case, the Court does not find emergency relief appropriate, as the Court finds that 11 Defendant Pigeat will not be irreparably prejudiced if the Court vacates the scheduled deposition and 12 resolves the motion pursuant to a slightly expedited briefing schedule. See Docket No. 223. 13 Accordingly, the Court VACATES the deposition of Defendant Pigeat pending resolution 14 of her motion. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s motion for protective 15 order no later than February 13, 2017. Any reply shall be filed no later than February 15, 2017. The 16 Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s Office to serve this order on Defendant Pigeat by e-mail at 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: February 8, 2017 20 21 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?