Crescent City School of Gaming & Bartending, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00657
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 CRESCENT CITY SCHOOL OF GAMING & BARTENDING, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00657-CDS-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), Order 7 v. [Docket Nos. 17,18] 8 TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE 9 COMPANY, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Discovery is meant to proceed “largely unsupervised by the district court.” Sali v. Corona 12 Reg. Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 13 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 14 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)). Unless such stipulation interferes with court proceedings or deadlines, parties 15 may agree among themselves to discovery procedures without obtaining judicial approval. Fed. 16 R. Civ. P. 29(b). Permissible extra-judicial discovery agreements may extend to establishing 17 procedures and protections regarding the exchange of confidential discovery material. See, e.g., 18 Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc., 332 F.R.D. 159, 161 (E.D. Penn. 2019) 19 (“Notwithstanding the absence of judicial imprimatur, the parties may agree to maintain 20 confidentiality of discovery materials”); David J. Frank Landscape Cont’g, Inc. v. La Rosa 21 Landscape, 199 F.R.D. 314, 315 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (“The parties are free to enter agreements 22 between themselves regarding how they will disseminate material produced in discovery”).1 When 23 parties seek judicial approval of a discovery agreement that does not require judicial approval, 24 judges act within their discretion to deny such request as unnecessary. See, e.g., Comminey v. 25 Sam’s W. Inc., 2020 WL 2764610, at *1 (D. Nev. May 27, 2020) (overruling objection). 26

27 1 If designated discovery material is later filed with the Court, a proper showing must be made at that point to support any request for sealing or redaction. See, e.g., Ricoh, 332 F.R.D. at 28 161. ] Pending before the Court are stipulations with clawback provisions and for protection of 2|)| designated material. Docket Nos. 17, 18. No showing has been made as to why judicial oversight 3] is required for the parties’ agreements. Accordingly, these stipulations are DENIED without 4]| prejudice. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: May 30, 2025 fe ZEN x Nancy J*Koppe 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28