Nunez et al v. Nunez et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 10 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 09/19/2013. (asp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
JENNIFER ELLEN NUNEZ, and CHRISTY
MARIE RICE, fka CHRISTY MARIE
NUNEZ,,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY
MOTION FOR LIMITED, EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 1:13-cv-126 TS
MICHAEL KEVIN NUNEZ, JR, individually
and as TRUSTEE, et al.,
District Judge Ted Stewart
Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Limited, Expedited Discovery and
to Preserve Evidence. 1 Plaintiffs filed their motion on September 12, 2013 and on the same day
filed a Request to Submit representing that the motion was “ripe for decision.” 2 The Court finds
Plaintiffs’ motion is premature and therefore DENIES it WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
As noted by Judge Stewart in his Memorandum Decision denying Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, “Plaintiffs appear to state a strong case for injunctive
relief.” 3 Defendants, however, have yet to make an appearance in this case and a summons was
issued electronically to Defendants on September 12, 2013. As such, the deadline for
Defendants to Answer the Complaint has yet to expire. Further, Defendants response to the
instant motion would be due at best by September 30, 2013, presuming they had already entered
an appearance in this case and had been served with a copy of the motion. While the Court is

1

Docket no. 10.

2

Request to Submit p. 1, docket no. 11.

3

Memorandum Decision and Order Decision denying Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
p. 4, docket no. 6.

sympathetic to Plaintiffs situation, and is willing to grant expedited discovery pursuant to Rule
26(d) when necessary, 4 Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause that discovery must
immediately commence without Defendants being given at least an opportunity to answer the
Complaint. 5 Finally, this is not a situation where all the Defendants are unknown or their
identities are difficult to find which sometimes necessitates expedited discovery. 6
ORDER
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Limited, Expedited Discovery and to Preserve Evidence.
Plaintiffs may renew the motion after the Defendants have been served and entered an
appearance on the record.

DATED this 19 September 2013.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge

4

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d); 1524948 Alberta Ltd. v. John Doe 1-50, 2010 WL 3743907 (D.Utah Nov. 23, 2011).

5

See e.g., Qwest Comm. Int’l. Inc. v. Wordquest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D.Colo.2003) (noting where
good cause exists so as to permit expedited discovery).
6
See e.g., 1524948 Alberta Ltd, 2010 WL 3743907 *1 (permitting expedited discovery where the plaintiffs did not
know the identities of the defendants); Warner Bros. Record Inc. v. Does 1-14, 555 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2008)
(permitting expedited discovery that sought to identify the unknown defendants).

2