Kennedy et al v. Las Vegas Sands Corp. et al

Filing 96

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 95 Defendants' Emergency Motion for Protective Order, Alternatively to Quash, Plaintiffs' Subpoena Issued to Non-Party The VanAllen Group, Inc. will be briefed in the ordinary course. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with Plaintiffs' subpoena duces tecum is stayed pending resolution of Defendant's motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 6/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

SEAN KENNEDY, et al.,
6

Plaintiffs,
2:17-cv-00880-JCM-VCF
ORDER

7

vs.

8

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., et al.,

9

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
[ECF NO. 95]

Defendants.

10
11

Before the Court is Defendants Sands Aviation, LLC and Las Vegas Sands Corp.’s Emergency

12

Motion for Protective Order, Alternatively to Quash, Plaintiffs’ Subpoena Issued to Non-Party The

13

VanAllen Group, Inc. (ECF No. 95). Defendants seek resolution of a subpoena duces tecum with a

14

response date of June 27, 2018. (Id. at 2).

15

Emergency motions must deal with “factual issues or legal questions that require a more urgent

16

timeline than would apply in the ordinary course of motion practice.” United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Assurance

17

Co. of Am., No. 2:10-CV-01086-JAD, 2014 WL 4960915, at *1 (D. Nev. June 4, 2014). In this case,

18

Defendants’ motion can be briefed in the ordinary course. The non-party affected by the subpoena duces

19

tecum served objections on Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 95-12). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2),

20

once objections have been made, the acts specified by the subpoena “may be required only as directed in

21

the [Court’s] order.” The Court1 has not yet issued an order compelling compliance with the subpoena

22

duces tecum.

23
24
1

25

It appears that this Court will be ruling on the issue, rather than the Northern District of Georgia. (ECF No. 95 at 8; ECF No.
95-12).
1

1

The Court recently directed the parties to submit an amended proposed discovery plan and

2

scheduling order to adjust the discovery deadline and other dates in this case. (ECF No. 92). The parties

3

can take the time needed to resolve the subpoena duces tecum dispute into account in their amended

4

proposed discovery plan and scheduling order.

5

Good cause appearing,

6

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Protective Order, Alternatively to

7

Quash, Plaintiffs’ Subpoena Issued to Non-Party The VanAllen Group, Inc. (ECF No. 95) will be briefed

8

in the ordinary course.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with Plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum is stayed
pending resolution of Defendant’s motion.

11
12

DATED this 25th day of June, 2018.
_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2