Anoruo v. Valley Health System, LLC

Filing 69

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions, Docket Nos. 42 and 47 , are DENIED. Both parties shall diligently engage in discovery. The Court WARNS Plaintiff that failure to comply with this order to diligently engage in discov ery could result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the instant case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant's countermotion for sanctions, Docket No. 44 , is DENIED. The Court WARNS Plaintiff that he must respond to all motions filed in the instant case, as failure to respond to a motion constitutes consent to the granting of the motion. Local Rule 7-2(d). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 JOSEPH ANORUO,
6

Plaintiff,

7 vs.
8 VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC,
9

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:18-cv-00105-MMD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 42, 44, 47)

10
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Joseph Anoruo’s motion to stay discovery and

11

12 renewed motion to stay discovery. Docket Nos. 42, 47. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s
13 motions, Defendant’s responses, and Plaintiff’s reply. Docket Nos. 42, 43, 47, 50, 54. Also
14 pending before the Court is Defendant’s countermotion for sanctions. Docket No. 44. Plaintiff
15 failed to respond to Defendant’s motion. See Docket. The Court finds that the motions are
16 properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.
The instant motions are not the first time that Plaintiff has requested a stay of discovery in

17

18 the instant case. Plaintiff previously requested a stay of discovery during the pendency of his
19 motion to remand. Docket No. 26. The Court denied this request on April 13, 2018. Docket No.
20 35. Plaintiff’s current requests, for the same relief that the Court has already denied, are in essence
1
21 requests for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order.

22
23

1

The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342
n.7 (9th Cir. 2010).

1

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b). Reconsideration is

2 appropriate if the Court: (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear
3 error, or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in
4 controlling law. Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff=s
5 motions do not cite, let alone attempt to comply with, the applicable standards. Reconsideration
6 is Aan extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly and in the interests of finality and conservation
7 of judicial resources.@ Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)
8 (internal quotation marks omitted).
9
10

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions, Docket Nos. 42 and 47, are DENIED. Both

11 parties shall diligently engage in discovery. The Court WARNS Plaintiff that failure to comply
12 with this order to diligently engage in discovery could result in sanctions, up to and including
13 dismissal of the instant case.
14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant’s countermotion for sanctions, Docket

15 No. 44, is DENIED. The Court WARNS Plaintiff that he must respond to all motions filed in the
16 instant case, as failure to respond to a motion constitutes consent to the granting of the motion.
17 Local Rule 7-2(d).
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: September 6, 2018.

20
21
22

NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23

2