Sharda v. Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, et al
ORDER granting 139 Motion to Compel; IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing no later than July 30, 2021 why attorney's fees and costs incurred by Defendants related to bringing and filing their Motion to Compel should not be awarded. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 7/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
NAVNEET SHARDA, M.D., an individual,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02233-JCM-EJY
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S
FEES AND COSTS
SUNRISE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
CENTER, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
SUNRISE HOSPITAL; SUSAN REISINGER,
an individual; DIPAK DESAI, an individual;
NEVADA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL
EXAMINERS; KATHERINE KEELEY, an
individual; DOE Individuals I through X; and
ROE CORPORATIONS and
ORGANIZATIONS I through X, inclusive,
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to First Set
of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories (ECF No. 139). No timely response to
this Motion was filed.
Under United States District Court for the District of Nevada Local Rule 7-2(d) “[t]he failure
of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”
Here, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ Motion to Compel and for that reason alone
Defendants’ Motion is granted.
Further, the Motion demonstrates that Defendants made substantial efforts to obtain
responses to discovery requests served on December 27, 2019, prior to bringing their Motion. ECF
No. 139 at 4-5. Numerous letters were sent and extensions were granted. Id. As of June 29, 2021,
no responses to discovery were received. These undisputed facts further support granting
Defendants’ Motion to Compel.
With respect to Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, the Court finds that Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 37(a)(4) supports the award. However, Rule 37(a)(5) provides, in pertinent part, that if a motion
to compel is granted “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party …
whose conduct necessitated the motion … to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in
making the motion, including attorney’s fees.”
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s
Responses to First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories (ECF No. 139) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants’ Interrogatories and
Requests for Production within 14 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is advised that failure to
abide by the terms of this Order may result in additional sanctions up to and including striking of his
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing no later than July 30,
2021 why attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Defendants related to bringing and filing their Motion
to Compel should not be awarded.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file a response to this Order to Show
Cause, Defendants may file a notice regarding the same, together with a memorandum of fees and
costs, detailing the activities, hours spent (in tenths of hours), and the rate charged by each attorney
who worked on the Motion. Appropriate redactions from billing records for attorney client privilege
and or work product may be made for the public filing with non-redacted copies of such records
filed under seal. Defendants’ notice and memorandum must be filed within 21 days of the date of
this Order. Plaintiff shall have 14 days to file a response, if any is desired. No reply shall be
permitted by Defendants.
Dated this 16th day of July, 2021.
ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?