Filed: Oct. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2014
Summary: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW OF SPECIAL MASTER DANIEL B. GARRIE PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. COMES NOW Defendant UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN NEVADA ("Defendant" or "UMC"), by and through its attorneys, Robert W. Freeman, Esq., Margaret G. Foley, Esq., and Cayla Witty, Esq., and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, and hereby respectfully move this
Summary: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW OF SPECIAL MASTER DANIEL B. GARRIE PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge. COMES NOW Defendant UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN NEVADA ("Defendant" or "UMC"), by and through its attorneys, Robert W. Freeman, Esq., Margaret G. Foley, Esq., and Cayla Witty, Esq., and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, and hereby respectfully move this C..
More
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW OF SPECIAL MASTER DANIEL B. GARRIE
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
COMES NOW Defendant UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN NEVADA ("Defendant" or "UMC"), by and through its attorneys, Robert W. Freeman, Esq., Margaret G. Foley, Esq., and Cayla Witty, Esq., and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, and hereby respectfully move this Court for leave to file a Reply in Support of the Objection (Dkt. No. 207, the "Objection") filed by UMC to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of Special Master Daniel B. Garrie (Dkt. No. 189, the "R&R"). This Motion is made pursuant to LR IA 3-1, which provides that the Court may "waive any of these rules if the interests of justice so require."
Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules for the District of Nevada appear to specifically provide, as a right, for the filing of a response or a reply to a response to a party's objection to a Special Master's final report and recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(f) governs objecting to a Special Master's order, but it does not specifically set forth procedures for responding to any such objection, or for replying to any such response. Local Rule IB 3-1, meanwhile, provides for the filing of an opposition to an objection to a magistrate judge's order, but it does not specifically include objections to a special master's order.
As this Court granted Plaintiffs' request for leave to file a Response to UMC's Objection to Special Master Garrie's R&R (Doc. No. 211), UMC respectfully requests the same leave of this Court to file a Reply in support of its Objection. UMC respectfully submits that such leave to file a Reply in support of UMC's Objection to the R&R is justified and necessary in the interests of justice so it may show this Court that Plaintiffs' Response fails to achieve its goal of defending an R&R that itself is factually and legally unsound, but which calls for sanctions that would effectively end this case before reaching its merits.
Accordingly, Defendant respectfully request leave to file, not later than fourteen (14) days after the filing of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Objection (or September 26, 2014), a Reply of not more than 40 pages in length.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
