Cochran v. Walmart, Inc.

D. Nevada

Cochran v. Walmart, Inc.

DecidedOctober 2, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00868

StatusUnknown

This text of Cochran v. Walmart, Inc. (Cochran v. Walmart, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cochran v. Walmart, Inc., (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 ELIZABETH COCHRAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00868-JAD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v.

10 WALMART, INC., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the case management deadlines by 60 13 days. Docket No. 14. The request is predicated on an assertion that counsel transitioned firms 14 over a “few weeks” last summer, which on its face does not justify a 60-day extension, as well as 15 the assertion that Walmart has an upcoming holiday shopping season, which is reasoning the Court 16 has rejected repeatedly. See, e.g., Urzua v. Walmart, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00811-GMN-NJK, Docket 17 No. 18 (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2023). 18 Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file a supplemental brief, supported by case law and 19 meaningfully developed legal argument, as to how good cause exists under Rule 16 of the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26-3 for a large corporation to exempt itself from the 21 discovery process in litigation for several months based on its business preferences. Defendant 22 must also explain in this supplemental filing why it continues to raise the same argument without 23 acknowledging the past rulings to the contrary, or explaining in any way why a different outcome 24 should be reached in this case.1 This supplemental brief must be no longer than 10 pages and must 25 be filed by noon on October 5, 2023. 26 1 Attorneys “play with fire if they raise the same arguments over and over and fail to 27 acknowledge prior adverse rulings.” Atlantis Enterps., Inc. v. Avon Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 11519593, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010) (quoting U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Com’s v. 28 Lake Shore Mgmt. Ltd., 540 F. Supp. 2d 994, 1015 (N.D. Ill. 2008)). ] The Court also SETS a hearing on this stipulation for 11:00 a.m. on October 6, 2023, in 2|| Courtroom 3C. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 2, 2023 A. 5 jf oe Y — — —. Nancy J. Koppe\, 6 United States-Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 ELIZABETH COCHRAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00868-JAD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v.

10 WALMART, INC., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is a stipulation to extend the case management deadlines by 60 13 days. Docket No. 14. The request is predicated on an assertion that counsel transitioned firms 14 over a “few weeks” last summer, which on its face does not justify a 60-day extension, as well as 15 the assertion that Walmart has an upcoming holiday shopping season, which is reasoning the Court 16 has rejected repeatedly. See, e.g., Urzua v. Walmart, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00811-GMN-NJK, Docket 17 No. 18 (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2023). 18 Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file a supplemental brief, supported by case law and 19 meaningfully developed legal argument, as to how good cause exists under Rule 16 of the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26-3 for a large corporation to exempt itself from the 21 discovery process in litigation for several months based on its business preferences. Defendant 22 must also explain in this supplemental filing why it continues to raise the same argument without 23 acknowledging the past rulings to the contrary, or explaining in any way why a different outcome 24 should be reached in this case.1 This supplemental brief must be no longer than 10 pages and must 25 be filed by noon on October 5, 2023. 26 1 Attorneys “play with fire if they raise the same arguments over and over and fail to 27 acknowledge prior adverse rulings.” Atlantis Enterps., Inc. v. Avon Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 11519593, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2010) (quoting U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Com’s v. 28 Lake Shore Mgmt. Ltd., 540 F. Supp. 2d 994, 1015 (N.D. Ill. 2008)). ] The Court also SETS a hearing on this stipulation for 11:00 a.m. on October 6, 2023, in 2|| Courtroom 3C. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 2, 2023 A. 5 jf oe Y — — —. Nancy J. Koppe\, 6 United States-Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cochran v. Walmart, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-walmart-inc-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack