Federal Trade Commission, et al. v. International Markets Live, Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00760
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 Federal Trade Commission, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00760-CDS-NJK

7 Plaintiff(s), Order

8 v. [Docket No. 141-142]

9 International Markets Live, Inc., et al.,

10 Defendant(s). 11 Pending before the Court are Intervenors’ motion for protective order, Docket No. 141, 12 and motion to brief and resolve that motion on an emergency basis, Docket No. 142. There are 13 several threshold problems here.1 14 First, the motion for protective order is not signed. See Docket No. 141 at 2, 24; but see 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 16 Second, the motion for protective order is not written with the clarity required for proper 17 adjudication. For example, the motion seeks a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c). See Docket 18 No. 141 at 12. As the case law cited makes plain, that rule governs issuance of protective orders 19 from discovery. See, e.g., U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Ent., Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 2006) 20 (resolving motion for protective order concerning deposition). Although unclear, it does not 21 appear that the instant motion is directed to any pending discovery matter. Indeed, were this a 22 discovery-related motion, it would violate the local rules requiring that the subject discovery 23 requests and responses be provided therein. See Local Rule 26-6(b). Moreover, meaningful 24 25 26

27 1 Movants are not exempt from the basic requirements for motion practice simply because they indicate that there are emergency circumstances involved. See, e.g., Cardoza v. Bloomin’ 28 Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1142 (D. Nev. 2015). 1} argument is not presented as to how it would be proper to issue a protective order to provide the 2|| relief being sought. 3 Accordingly, the motion for protective order is DENIED without prejudice, and the motion 4! for emergency treatment is DENIED as moot. If Intervenors continue to seek relief, they must 5] ensure that they fashion their motions appropriately, rely on legal authority pertinent to the relief 6] sought, and file the motion in CMECF using the correct event. Local Rule IC 2-2(b). If Intervenors are seeking to modify or clarify the preliminary injunction order, for example, they 8|| must file a motion framed as such. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 14, 2025

Nancy J.Ko 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 The motion quotes without elaboration from an old district court case from a different circuit, a decision that itself provides no explanation as to how a protective order issued pursuant 27} to Rule 26(c) is properly issued in the context of this motion. See Docket No. 141 at 12. To the extent Intervenors meant this bare reference to somehow explain how the relief sought is warranted 28] under Rule 26(c), the Court does not find that reference to be sufficiently developed argument.