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)

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