Castillo v. Western Range Association

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 ABEL CANTARO CASTILLO, and those Case No. 3:16-CV-00237-RCJ-CLB similarly situated, 5 ORDER OVERRULING DEPOSITION

OBJECTIONS 6 Plaintiffs,

v. 7 [ECF No. 250]

WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION, 8

9 Defendant.

10 11 Before the Court is Third Party Witnesses Borda Land and Sheep Co., Estill 12 Ranches, F.I.M. Corp., Inc., and Rafter Seven Merinos, Inc.’s (collectively referred to as 13 “Third-Party Ranches”) notice of deposition objections. (ECF Nos. 250, 2511.) Plaintiff 14 Abel Cantaro Castillo (“Castillo”) responded, (ECF No. 252), and no reply was filed. For 15 the reasons discussed below, the Court overrules the deposition objections. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 On December 15, 2020, several third-party witnesses moved to quash subpoenas 18 for production of documents and for depositions, arguing the discovery requests would 19 be unduly burdensome on the Third-Party Ranches. (ECF No. 229.) On January 15, 20 2021, the Court held a hearing on the motion to quash, in which it granted, in part, and 21 denied, in part, the motion. (ECF No. 243.) The Court ordered that the Ranches submit 22 detailed declarations with the requested information, permitted Castillo to request 23 depositions if the declarations were inadequate, and provided the Third-Party Ranches 24 an opportunity to object to any such depositions. (Id.) The Court set the deadline to file 25 objections for April 23, 2021. (Id.) On June 30, 2021—more than 60 days after the 26 27 28 1 ECF No. 251 is an erratum to the notice of deposition objections. 1 deadline to file objections had passed—the Third-Party Ranches filed the instant notice 2 of deposition objections. (ECF No. 250.) 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 The Third-Party Ranches’ notice of deposition objections argues that pursuant to 5 the Court’s January 15 order, the Third-Party Ranches object to the deposition notices 6 served on F.I.M., Borda Ranch, Rafter Seven Merinos, and Estill Ranches, as Castillo 7 has largely disregarded his obligation to avoid imposing an undue burden on the Third- 8 Party Ranches, and they request the Court quash the subject subpoenas. (ECF No. 9 250.) In response, Castillo argues the Third-Party Ranches waived their opportunity to 10 object to the depositions as the objection was untimely filed, the noticed depositions 11 pose the least possible burden to the Third-Party Ranches, the relevance of the 12 discovery outweighs any burden on the Third-Party Ranches, and finally, Green Goat 13 should be compelled to attend its deposition. (ECF No. 252.) 14 After reviewing the notice of deposition objections and response, the Court finds 15 as follows. First, the notice was untimely filed. Pursuant to the Court’s January 15 order, 16 the Third-Party Ranches had until April 23, 2021, to file objections. However, the Third- 17 Party Ranches waited more than 60 days after the deadline passed to file their 18 objections, thereby waiving any objection. See Davis v. Fendler, 650 F. 2d 1154, 1160 19 (9th Cir. 1981); accord Wilson v. Greater Las Vegas Ass’n of Realtors, No. 2:14-cv- 20 00362-APG-NJK, 2016 WL 1734082, at *3 (D. Nev. May 2, 2016) (“It is well established 21 that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver 22 of any objection.”). 23 Moreover, even if the notice was not untimely, the Court finds the objections to be 24 without merit. The topics noticed for deposition are fairly limited in nature and the Third- 25 Party Ranches only provide conclusory statements as to whether the requests are 26 unduly burdensome. Scientific Games Corp. v. AGS LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00343-JAD-NJK, 27 2017 WL 3013251 at *2 (D. Nev. July 13, 2017) (Conclusory or speculative statements 28 about the undue burden posed are “plainly insufficient.”). Further, the Third-Party 1 Ranches do not cite to any cases or provide any justifiable legal basis to demonstrate 2 that the depositions are disproportionate to the needs of the case. Here, as already 3 noted, the topics noticed for the depositions are fairly limited and indicate that the 4 depositions will be conducted by video conferencing. Therefore, the Court finds that 5 noticed depositions and topics are not unduly burdensome and shall proceed. 6 III. CONCLUSION 7 Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Third-Party Ranches’ notice 8 of deposition objection (ECF No. 250) is OVERRULED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 45 days, Castillo shall re-notice the 10 depositions of the Third-Party Ranches, including Green Goat, for a date and time 11 convenient to both parties. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATE: _J_u_l_y_ 3_0_,_ 2_0_2_1______ 14 ______________________________________ 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28