Chemeon Surface Technology, LLC vs Metalast International, Inc, et al

Filing 263

ORDER granting Metalast's ECF No. 223 Motion to Compel, directing Chemeon to produce the disputed discovery by 4/17/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 4/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5

CHEMEON SURFACE TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

6

Plaintiff,

7
8

Case No. 3:15-CV-0294-MMD (VPC)
ORDER

v.
METALAST INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

9

Defendants.

10

_______________________________________

11

AND RELATED CLAIMS.

12
13

At the case management conference held on September 22, 2016, this court ordered parties

14

to meet and confer regarding production of metalast.com and chemeon.com emails, disclosure of

15

emails containing the words “Chemetall” or “Metalast,” and to submit an ESI protocol to the court

16

by October 6, 2016. (ECF No. 182 at 2.) At the next case management conference held on October

17

17, 2016, this court noted that the production of metalast.com and chemeon.com emails was

18

moving forward sufficiently and no issues regarding production were brought up to the court. (See

19
20
21
22
23
24

ECF No. 191 at 1-2). On January 6, 2017 the parties participated in a settlement conference,
causing many discovery issues to be deferred.
Now before the court is Metalast International, Inc., Metalast, Inc., Sierra Dorado, Inc.,
and David M. Semas’s (collectively, “Metalast”) motion to compel full compliance with this
court’s prior orders regarding production of emails.

(ECF No. 223.)

Chemeon Surface

Technology, LLC, (“Chemeon”) filed their opposition (ECF Nos. 234, 235) and Metalast replied

25
(ECF No. 254).
26
27
28

Chemeon argues that in light of the District Court’s ruling on Metalast’s motion for
summary judgment, the emails now have no bearing on Metalast’s counterclaims. (ECF No. 234.)

1

The court notes that it issued its order regarding the production of emails in September 2016, while

2

the District Court issued its summary judgment order on March 15, 2017—after the present motion

3

to compel was filed. Chemeon has failed to comply with this court’s order. To the extent Chemeon

4

believes this court’s prior order is moot, the proper procedure is to file a motion for reconsideration.

5

Metalast’s motion to compel (ECF No. 223) is GRANTED. Chemeon is ordered to

6
7
8

produce the disputed discovery no later than April 17, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 10, 2017.

9
10
11

_______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-