Savan Magic Ltd.

Filing 33

ORDER re 32 Response to Motion. Respondent's "opposition" is DENIED without prejudice. To the extent Respondent believes grounds exist such that § 1782 discovery should not be allowed, he shall make those arguments in responding to any motion to compel that is filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/20/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 13 14 15 IN RE APPLICATION OF SAVAN MAGIC LTD. TO TAKE DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-01689-JCM-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 32) 16 This Court has broad discretion in controlling its docket. E.g., N.M. v. Lafayette School Dist., 17 681 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court exercised that discretion in this case to streamline 18 proceedings and avoid duplicative briefing by the parties. In particular, the Court ordered that, to the 19 extent it cannot be resolved without Court intervention, the dispute between the parties shall be 20 presented to the Court through Petitioner’s filing of a motion to compel, Respondent’s response thereto, 21 and a reply. Docket No. 31 at 2 & n.2 (“All relevant arguments shall be included in briefing the motion 22 to compel”). The Court further advised that it would enter appropriate relief to Respondent in the event 23 it denied that motion to compel. Id. at 2 n.2 (“To the extent the Court finds any or all of the discovery 24 sought to be improper, it will issue sua sponte an order protecting Respondent from that discovery”). 25 Now pending before the Court is Respondent’s opposition to the Petitioner’s initial application 26 that has already been granted, which also appears to be a motion for the Court to reconsider the order 27 granting the initial application. Docket No. 32. Especially in light of the Court’s previous order, it is 28 unclear why Respondent has chosen to address the propriety of § 1782 discovery separately from raising 1 those arguments in opposing any motion to compel that is filed by Petitioner. See, e.g., In re Judicial 2 Assistance Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 by Macquarie Bank Ltd., 2015 WL 3439103 (D. Nev. May 28, 3 2015) (after having granted ex parte application to propound § 1782 discovery, denying motion to 4 compel and sua sponte quashing subpoena based on arguments that § 1782 discovery should not be 5 allowed), objections overruled, 2015 WL 7258483 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2015). Nor does the Court find 6 that there is any need for Respondent to request “reconsideration” of the prior order granting the 7 application to propound that discovery, as that order was entered with the express caveat that “nothing 8 herein prevents Respondent from challenging the discovery once it is served both with respect to 9 whether it should be allowed under § 1782 and the scope of discovery that should be allowed.” 10 Docket No. 8 at 2 (emphasis added). In short, at this stage, the response to any motion to compel is the 11 proper vehicle for Respondent to raise arguments that the requirements for § 1782 discovery are not 12 satisfied in this case. 13 As it presents arguments that should be raised in responding to any motion to compel pursuant 14 to the Court’s previous order, Respondent’s “opposition” is DENIED without prejudice. To the extent 15 Respondent believes grounds exist such that § 1782 discovery should not be allowed, he shall make 16 those arguments in responding to any motion to compel that is filed. If the Court is persuaded by such 17 arguments presented in opposing any motion to compel, it will quash the subpoenas issued. See, e.g., 18 Macquarie Bank, 2015 WL 3439103, at *11. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: September 20, 2017 21 22 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?