Cimarron Road LLC v. Gensler Architecture Design & Planning

Filing 33

ORDER denying without prejudice 31 Motion for Protective Order; ORDER denying as moot 32 Motion to Extend Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/9/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Download PDF
Case 2:21-cv-01158-APG-NJK Document 33 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 CIMARRON ROAD LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01158-APG-NJK Plaintiff(s), 8 Order v. 9 10 [Docket Nos. 31, 32] GENSLER ARTCHITECTURE, DESIGN & PLANNING, P.C., Defendant(s). 11 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for protective order, brought on an 13 emergency basis. Docket No. 31; see also Docket No. 32 (request to shorten time). The gist of 14 the motion is that the parties cannot agree on the terms of a stipulated protective order. “Counsel 15 should strive to be cooperative, practical, and sensible.” Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, 141 F. 16 Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015). Crafting a stipulated protective order is a routine endeavor 17 that should almost always be uncontroversial.1 The Court is not persuaded that the parties are truly 18 unable—through sensible and cooperative dialogue—to come to an agreement on a stipulated 19 protective order. 20 Accordingly, the motion for protective order (Docket No. 31) is DENIED without 21 prejudice. Counsel must promptly confer on the terms of a stipulated protective order. The Court 22 expects the parties to come to an agreement and file a stipulated protective order by September 10, 23 2021. To the extent counsel cannot come to an agreement, a renewed motion must be filed by 24 September 10, 2021. To be clear, however, the Court sees no reason why motion practice should 25 be necessary. To the extent motion practice is pursued, the losing attorney(s) should anticipate 26 1 Indeed, it is not uncommon for judges within the Ninth Circuit to post standard stipulated 27 protective orders to establish the general terms for an order in any particular case. See, e.g., 28 %20Order.pdf (Abrams, J.). 1 Case 2:21-cv-01158-APG-NJK Document 33 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2 1 that the Court will award fees to the prevailing side. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3); see also Fed. 2 R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) (authorizing an award of fees from attorneys advising conduct). 3 The request to shorten time (Docket No. 32) is DENIED as moot. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 9, 2021 ______________________________ Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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?