Nelsen v. Konami Gaming, Inc.
Filing
19
ORDER Denying 17 Motion for Protective Order and 18 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/8/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
COREY NELSEN,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
v.
13
KONAMI GAMING, INC.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:17-cv-02248-APG-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 17, 18)
16
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for protective order and to stay discovery.
17
Docket Nos. 17, 18. That motion seeks an order allowing Defendant to delay or avoid the requirement
18
to respond to discovery pending resolution of its motions seeking arbitration. That motion is targeted
19
at, inter alia, relieving Defendant of the obligation to respond to the outstanding written discovery
20
already propounded. See, e.g., Docket No. 17 at 2. Problematically, responses to that discovery were
21
due on December 7, 2017, see, e.g., Docket No. 17-1 at ¶ 7, and the motion for protective order and to
22
stay discovery was not filed until 8:27 p.m. on December 7, 2017, see Docket No. 17 (notice of
23
electronic filing). Defendant has not shown that the circumstances warrant emergency consideration of
24
its motion, and does not appear to even seek that relief. Cf. Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F.
25
Supp. 3d 1137, 1140-43 (D. Nev. 2015) (outlining requirements for seeking emergency relief).
26
Moreover, Defendant has not shown that the mere filing of a motion for protective order obviates the
27
requirement to respond to the written discovery that has been propounded. Cf. Nationstar Mtg., LLC
28
v. Flamingo Trails No. 7 Landscape Maintenance Assoc., 316 F.R.D. 327, 336-37 (D. Nev. July 28,
1
2016) (holding that the mere filing of motion for protective order does not relieve a deponent from
2
appearing for deposition). Hence, the motion may be moot with respect to the discovery responses that
3
were due on December 7, 2017.
4
In light of these circumstances, the pending motion for protective order and to stay discovery is
5
DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed motion must specifically explain (1) whether emergency
6
relief is sought and, if so, how the applicable standards for such relief are met, and (2) if emergency
7
relief is not sought or is not granted, whether the motion is moot with respect to the discovery responses
8
that were due on December 7, 2017.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
12
DATED: December 8, 2017
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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?