Toavs v. Bannister et al

Filing 96

ORDER granting 88 Motion to Take Video Deposition of Defendant John Peery; denying as moot 94 Motion for Status Conference. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/26/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10
11
12

BERTON G. TOAVS,

Case No. 3:12-cv-00449-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
ROBERT BANNISTER, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Take the Video Deposition of

15

Defendant John Peery Remotely and to Use Same at Trial in Lieu of Live Testimony

16

(“Motion”). (Dkt. no. 88.) Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion. LR 7-2(d) provides

17

that “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any

18

motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion.” By failing to respond,

19

Plaintiff has therefore consented to the granting of the Motion. Moreover, the Court finds

20

that Defendants have demonstrated good cause to support the granting of the Motion

21

under Rules 30(b)(3), 30(b)(4) and 32(a)(4)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

22

It is therefore ordered that Defendants’ Motion (dkt. no. 88) is granted. Defendants’

23

motion for status conference or resolution (dkt. no. 94) is denied as moot.

24

DATED THIS 26th day of August 2015.

25
26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE