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