MGM Grand Hotel, LLC v. Shin et al

Filing 39

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 37 Motion for Letter of Request without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 02/02/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 vs. 13 KYUNG SHIN, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:16-cv-02347-JAD-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 37) 16 On January 31, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s letter of request as not being accompanied by 17 a motion supported by a memorandum of points and authorities. Docket No. 36. Plaintiff has now filed 18 a motion supported by a memorandum of points and authorities. Docket No. 37. That memorandum 19 contains one legal citation and one legal assertion, that the Court has the inherent power to issue a letter 20 of request. Docket No. 37 at 2. That may well be true, but Plaintiff has failed to explain through legal 21 authority that the Court should exercise that power in this case. Bare assertions of a right to relief are 22 not sufficient. See, e.g., Greenwood v. F.A.A., 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994).1 Absent an application 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Case law is not lacking providing significant analysis of the applicable standards, requirements, and considerations for such a request. See, e.g., Viasat, Inc. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 2013 WL 12061801, at *2-4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013) (addressing the basic standards for a letter of request, the requirement to ensure such a request complies with the discovery principles outlined in Rule 26, and a five-factor comity analysis). 1 meaningfully developing the applicable standards and meaningfully explaining how they are met in this 2 case, the Court declines to issue the letter of request. 3 In addition, Plaintiff has filed its motion without giving notice to the would-be deponent. See 4 Docket No. 37 at 2-3. Plaintiff has not explained that it is generally proper to seek a letter of request 5 without notice. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(2)(A) (requiring an application “and notice of it” prior 6 to the issuance of a letter of request). Nor has Plaintiff made a meaningful showing that the law and 7 facts of this particular case justify departing from the typical requirement of affording notice. See 8 Maxson v. Mosaic Sales Solutions U.S. Operating Co., 2015 WL 4661981, at *1-2 (D. Nev. July 29, 9 2015) (addressing disfavored nature of ex parte motions and the requirements for filing such a motion).2 10 The pending motion for letter of request is therefore DENIED without prejudice. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: February 2, 2017 13 ______________________________________ ___________________ _ _ _ NANCY J. KOPPE . KOPPE P E United States Magistr te Judge t tes Magistrate is rat istr 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 When the movant contends that providing notice would frustrate the movant’s ability to obtain relief, such circumstances must be shown with particularized detail in a declaration. See id. at *1. 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?