Guardado v. State of Nevada Ex Rel et al

Filing 102

ORDER Defendants must supplement their response by 8/30/2021 and detail what they have done to comply with this Courts 94 Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 8/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:17-cv-00879-JCM-BNW Document 102 Filed 08/16/21 Page 1 of 1

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
Ernest Jord Guardado,

8

Case No. 2:17-cv-00879-JCM-BNW
Plaintiff,

9

ORDER
v.

10

State of Nevada Ex Rel, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. ECF No. 96. Defendants opposed this

14
motion at ECF No. 97. Plaintiff replied at ECF No. 99. The only issue for the Court to consider is
15
16
17

whether Defendants should be sanctioned for their failure to comply with this Court’s order at
ECF No. 94.1 In that order, the Court gave specific instructions to Defendants explaining what
information needed to be supplemented. Defendants’ response does not address that issue. For the

18
Court to determine whether sanctions are appropriate, Defendants must supplement their response
19

by August 30, 2021 and detail what they have done to comply with this Court’s order at ECF No.

20
94.
21
22
DATED: August 16, 2021
23
24

BRENDA WEKSLER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

Whether Defendants misrepresented Plaintiff’s willingness to meet and confer or whether Plaintiff previously
violated specific local rules are inconsequential issues at this juncture and, in any event, do not constitute
sanctionable actions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, the Court will only address the conduct that
falls within that rule: the failure of a party to obey a discovery order.
1