Robert A. Slovak vs Golf Course Villas Homeowners Association, et al

Filing 335

ORDER denying ECF No. 331 Plaintiff's motion for clarification and leave to conduct pre-hearing discovery, and denying as moot ECF No. 332 Plaintiff's motion for order shortening time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 7/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DN)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

ROBERT A. SLOVAK,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8
9

3:13-cv-00569-MMD-CLB

v.

ORDER

GOLF COURSE VILLAS HOMEOWNERS
AOSSICATION, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

Currently pending before the court is Plaintiff Robert A. Slovak’s (“Slovak”)

12

“motion for clarification and leave to conduct limited pre-evidentiary hearing discovery.”

13

ECF No. 331. In this motion, Slovak alleges he seeks “clarification” of the Court’s

14

previous orders which explicitly denied his repeated requests to engage in pre-

15

evidentiary hearing discovery, i.e., to take the depositions of witnesses that may be

16

called to testify at the upcoming bifurcated evidentiary hearing. ECF No. 331. This

17

hearing was initially scheduled for February 2019 but was continued to August 2021.

18

Defendant Wells Fargo opposed this motion – pointing out the many times Mr.

19

Slovak previously made this identical request in relation to the bifurcated hearing and the

20

many times the Court expressly denied these requests. ECF No. 333. Mr. Slovak replied.

21

ECF No. 334. Having reviewed the papers, attachments, and prior filings in this case, the

22

Court again DENIES Mr. Slovak’s motion for clarification and leave to conduct pre-

23

evidentiary hearing discovery. ECF No. 331.

24

The Court agrees with Wells Fargo and adopts its analysis and expressly rejects

25

the arguments made by Slovak. Contrary to Slovak’s arguments, the purpose and scope

26

of the evidentiary hearing set for August 2021 remains the same as when this hearing

27

was originally set in February 2019 – irrespective of what motion or motions may or may

28

not be pending. Specifically, the purpose of the hearing was, and continues to be, for the

1

presentation of evidence related to the authenticity and originality of the documents

2

offered by Wells Fargo in 2018 to finalize the parties’ settlement agreement. In 2018, this

3

Court expressly ruled – on more than one occasion – that pre-hearing discovery or

4

depositions were not necessary on the straightforward issues related to the authenticity

5

and originality of these documents. Nothing has changed with respect to the purpose or

6

scope of the hearing as claimed by Slovak – regardless of the procedural posture or

7

change in pending motions. Thus, the Court re-affirms its prior rulings on these points

8

and denies his motion. ECF No. 331.

9
10
11
12
13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for clarification and leave to
conduct pre-hearing discovery, ECF No. 331, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time, ECF No. 332,
is DENIED as moot.
DATED: July 16, 2021.

14
15

______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2