Hawkins v. Aria Resort & Casino Holdings, LLC

Filing 66

ORDER Denying 62 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/9/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

TAMIKA HAWKINS,

9
10
11

Case No. 2:23-cv-01018-JCM-NJK

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
ARIA RESORT & CASINO HOLDINGS,
LLC, et al.,

12

[Docket No. 62]

Defendant(s).

13

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Docket No. 62.

14

There is no specific deadline enunciated in the governing rules by which to file a motion

15 to compel; that determination is left to the exercise of judicial discretion. Wyles v. Sussman, 445
16 F. Supp. 3d 751, 755 (C.D. Cal. 2020). Case law in this District has long made clear that the
17 dispositive motion deadline is generally the outer limit for filing a motion to compel. Gault v.
18 Nabisco Biscuit Co., 184 F.R.D. 620, 622 (D. Nev. 1999). Motions to compel filed after that date
19 are presumptively untimely and will be denied on that basis absent a showing of unusual
20 circumstances. Garcia v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 332 F.R.D. 351, 354 (D. Nev. 2019).1 The
21 untimeliness of a discovery motion may be raised sua sponte as it implicates the Court’s
22 management of the docket and enforcement of its own orders. Garcia, 332 F.R.D. at 354 n.2
23 (citing Bonavito v. Nev. Prop. 1 LLC, 2014 WL 5364077, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2014)).
24
25
26

1

“The rationale for this approach is entirely clear: discovery should be completed before
moving to the merits stage of litigation and continuing to address the substance of discovery
27 motions filed after the dispositive motion deadline would disrupt the court’s management of its
docket and defeat the purpose of the Scheduling Order.” Garcia, 332 F.R.D. at 354 (citation and
28 internal quotations omitted).
1

1

In this case, the subject request for production was served on December 14, 2023. See

2 Docket No. 62 at 2. The response to the request was served on January 12, 2024. See Docket No.
3 63 at 13. The first meet-and-confer effort on this dispute occurred on February 14, 2024, with a
4 follow-up on March 4, 2024. See Docket No. 63 at ¶ 6. The discovery cutoff expired on March
5 4, 2024, and the dispositive motion deadline expired on April 3, 2024. Docket No. 26 at 1. And,
6 yet, Plaintiff’s motion to compel was not filed until more than a month after the dispositive motion
7 deadline, on May 9, 2024. The motion to compel is presumptively untimely and a showing to
8 justify its late-filing has not been made.
9

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED as untimely.2

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: May 9, 2024

12

______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2

“Untimeliness is sufficient ground, standing alone, to deny a discovery motion.” KST
Data, Inc. v. DXC Tech. Co., 344 F. Supp. 3d 1132, 1136 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Williams
27 v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., Case No. 2:13-cv-01340-GMN-NJK, 2015 WL 3489553, at *1
(D. Nev. June 3, 2015)). Because the motion is denied on timeliness grounds, the Court need not
28 opine on whether the motion is otherwise properly filed or meritorious.
26

2