V5 Technologies v. Switch, Ltd., 2:17-cv-02349-KJD-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190528b44
Visitors: 2
Filed: May 24, 2019
Latest Update: May 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER [Docket No. 101] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel non-party discovery from Nicole Folino. Docket No. 101. Ms. Folino argues in opposition that, inter alia, the motion should be denied as untimely. See Docket No. 103 at 9-10. Plaintiff responds in reply that its motion is timely. See Docket No. 105 at 12-13. Neither party addresses the full standards that govern this issue, however. A party may not unduly delay in movi
Summary: ORDER [Docket No. 101] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel non-party discovery from Nicole Folino. Docket No. 101. Ms. Folino argues in opposition that, inter alia, the motion should be denied as untimely. See Docket No. 103 at 9-10. Plaintiff responds in reply that its motion is timely. See Docket No. 105 at 12-13. Neither party addresses the full standards that govern this issue, however. A party may not unduly delay in movin..
More
ORDER
[Docket No. 101]
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel non-party discovery from Nicole Folino. Docket No. 101. Ms. Folino argues in opposition that, inter alia, the motion should be denied as untimely. See Docket No. 103 at 9-10. Plaintiff responds in reply that its motion is timely. See Docket No. 105 at 12-13. Neither party addresses the full standards that govern this issue, however.
A party may not unduly delay in moving to compel discovery. E.g., Gault v. Nabisco Biscuit Co., 184 F.R.D. 620, 622 (D. Nev. 1999). While guideposts have been developed regarding timeliness of motions to compel, there are no bright-line rules and the timeliness of each motion must be determined based on the circumstances specific to that case. Williams v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 2015 WL 3489553, at *1 (D. Nev. June 3, 2015). Several judges in this District have identified a non-exhaustive list of factors to use in determining the timeliness of a discovery motion: (1) the length of time since expiration of the deadline; (2) the length of time the moving party has known about the discovery; (3) whether the discovery deadline has been previously extended; (4) the explanation for the tardiness or delay; (5) the age of the case; (6) any prejudice to the party from whom the discovery is sought; and (7) disruption of the court's schedule. See id. (collecting cases).1
Given the circumstances, the Court will order supplemental briefing. Plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief addressing the above standards by May 30, 2019, and Ms. Folino shall file a responsive supplemental brief by June 5, 2019. These briefs must be no longer than 12 pages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. These standards have been applied in the context of non-party discovery sought under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Bartech Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Mobile Simple Sols., Inc., 2018 WL 1787905, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 31, `). Plaintiff notes in reply that the applicable rule allows for the filing of a motion to compel "[a]t any time." See Docket No. 105 at 13 n.3 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i)). To the extent there is a reasonable basis for doing so, Plaintiff is not precluded by this order from arguing that the above standards do not apply to a motion to compel brought pursuant to Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i).
Source: Leagle
