Shahrokhi v. Harter, et al.
ORDER Re: The Court STRIKES the 64 , 66 Subpoenas Issued and INSTRUCTS Plaintiff to refrain from filing discovery documents on the docket in the future absent a Court order that he do so. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/17/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)
Case 2:20-cv-01623-JAD-NJK Document 70 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No.: 2:20-cv-01623-JAD-NJK
[Docket Nos. 64, 66]
JUDGE MATHEW HARTER, et al.,
On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a subpoena for deposition and production of
13 documents and an amended subpoena for deposition and production of documents. Docket Nos.
14 64, 66. Discovery-related documents must be served on opposing counsel, not filed on the docket
15 unless ordered by the Court. See Local Rule 26-7 (stating deposition notices must not be filed
16 until used in proceeding and absent court order); Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d)(1) (stating deposition notices
17 may not be filed until used in proceeding); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(4) (stating notice of intent
18 to serve subpoena “must be served on each party”) (emphasis added). No order has been entered
19 in this case requiring Plaintiff to file a deposition notice. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the
20 above-referenced documents, and INSTRUCTS Plaintiff to refrain from filing discovery
21 documents on the docket in the future absent a Court order that he do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2020
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge
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?