Filed: Aug. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER [Docket No. 127]. NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a motion to compel the law firm of Howard & Howard to produce Defendant's case file to his new counsel. Docket No. 127. James Kohl at Howard & Howard filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 134. That response also includes a request to amend the fees judgment. See id. at 4. No reply was filed. With respect the request to amend the fees judgment, such request was included within the responsive brie
Summary: ORDER [Docket No. 127]. NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a motion to compel the law firm of Howard & Howard to produce Defendant's case file to his new counsel. Docket No. 127. James Kohl at Howard & Howard filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 134. That response also includes a request to amend the fees judgment. See id. at 4. No reply was filed. With respect the request to amend the fees judgment, such request was included within the responsive brief..
More
ORDER
[Docket No. 127].
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is a motion to compel the law firm of Howard & Howard to produce Defendant's case file to his new counsel. Docket No. 127. James Kohl at Howard & Howard filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 134. That response also includes a request to amend the fees judgment. See id. at 4. No reply was filed.
With respect the request to amend the fees judgment, such request was included within the responsive brief in violation of Local Rule IC 2-2(b). To the extent relief is sought in that form, a separate motion must be filed on the docket. The Court herein otherwise expresses no opinion on that issue.
With respect to the requested production of the file to new counsel, Defendant argues that the time is ripe for that production because there has already been an adjudication of the lien. Indeed, judgment has now been entered on the fees owed through that lien. See Docket No. 132. Defendant concludes the motion by quoting from the governing state statute, which provides as follows:
A lien pursuant to . . . Paragraph (b) of subsection 1 attaches to any file or other property properly left in the possession of the attorney by his or her client, including, without limitation, copies of the attorney's file if the original documents received from the client have been returned to the client, and authorizes the attorney to retain any such file or property until such time as an adjudication is made pursuant to subsection 6 . . ."
N.R.S. 18.015(4) (emphasis added); see also Mot. at 8. The response to the motion does not address this statutory language.
Accordingly, Mr. Kohl shall file a supplement explaining why this statutory provision does not render it proper to require production of the file in light of entry of the fees judgment.1 That supplement must be filed by August 15, 2019, and will be limited to no more than five pages in length.
The Clerk's Office is INSTRUCTED to provide notice of this order to Mr. Kohl both through to his email address (jak@h2law.com) and by mailing it to his physical address as stated on the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
