Ditech Financial LLC et al v. Antelope Homeowners' Association et al

Filing 55

ORDER that the Court declines to impose monetary sanctions at this time. The 48 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED but CAUTIONS Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador that it is not permitted to avoid discovery moving forward. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/30/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10

DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, et al.,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

vs.

13

ANTELOPE HOMEOWNERS’
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-02029-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 48)

16

Pending before the Court is an order for Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador d/b/a GDS Financial

17

to show cause arising out of its non-participation in the preparation and filing of the amended discovery

18

plan. Docket No. 48. Defendant has now filed a response, indicating that it is not required to participate

19

in discovery since it is challenging the sufficiency of service and the Court does not have jurisdiction

20

over it as a result. Docket No. 53. More specifically, Defendant contends that it “will have to wait for

21

an order from this honorable court that it is ok for [it] to participate in the ‘discovery stage.’” id. at 3.

22

Defendant is wrong. “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket

23

stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green,

24

294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013) (quoting Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D.

25

Nev. 2011)). That remains true even where a defendant challenges service of process or personal

26

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 156928, at *5

27

(D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing AMC Fabrication, Inc. v. KRD Trucking West, Inc., 2012 WL 4846152

28

(D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2012) and Holiday Sys., Int’l of Nev. v. Vivarelli, Schwarz, & Assocs., 2012 WL

1

3860824 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2012)). Defendant has not shown and the Court has not found that it is

2

permitted to avoid its discovery obligations. By default and without further Court order, Defendant was

3

required to participate in the formulation and filing of the discovery plan, and is not exempted from

4

complying with its discovery obligations moving forward.

5

Nonetheless, the Court declines to impose monetary sanctions at this time. The Court hereby

6

DISCHARGES the order to show cause, but CAUTIONS Defendant Leodegario D. Salvador d/b/a

7

GDS Financial that it is not permitted to avoid discovery moving forward.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: October 30, 2017

10

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2