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)

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