Adherence v. CVS Health Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case No. 2:24-cv-01590-JCM-NJK Plaintiff(s), Order v. [Docket No. 51] CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al., Defendant(s). Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for protective order. Docket No. 51. Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 53. Defendants filed a reply. Docket No. 56. The Court will not hold a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. Litigants are required to engage in the discovery process in a spirit of cooperation and good faith. Sali v. Corona Reg. Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015). Consistent with that duty, the Court previously denied without prejudice a stipulated protective order on the ground that such agreement was already binding on the parties and no showing was made as to why judicial oversight was required. See Docket No. 48 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 29). Inexplicably, counsel apparently took the issuance of an order predicated on required professionalism and cooperation as an invitation to engage in a sandbox fight leading to a refusal to agree on how to proceed forward, a motion for protective order, and a countermotion for sanctions. While these circumstances may tarnish reputations, the playground tantrums do make clear that the Court will be required to act as schoolmarm in this case. Cf. Mazzeo v. Gibbons, 2010 WL 3020021, at *2 (D. Nev. July 27, 2010) (Leen, J.). As judicial oversight is apparently required for the particular litigants in this case, the Court will issue (with slight modification) the stipulated protective order that was earlier agreed to by the parties. See Docket No. 46. ] In light of the above, the motion for protective order (Docket No. 51) 1s DENIED as moot. The countermotion for sanctions is DENIED, but counsel for both sides are admonished for their 3] lack of cooperation. Dated: May 20, 2025 Nancy J.Koppe United States Magistrate Judge