Hill v. Wynn Resorts Limited

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Webb Hill, Case No. 2:21-cv-02113-CDS-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Wynn Resorts, Limited d/b/a Encore Las 9 Vegas,

10 Defendant.

11 12 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Webb Hill’s proposed subpoena (ECF No. 66), motion 13 regarding “new discoveries and parties” (ECF No. 68), and motion “to request meeting” (ECF 14 No. 70). Because each of his filings are improper, the Court denies his motions (ECF Nos. 68 15 and 70) and strikes his proposed subpoena (ECF No. 66). In his motion regarding “new 16 discoveries and parties,” Plaintiff appears to seek discovery from Defendant and to explain what 17 disclosures he can make. (ECF No. 68). In his motion “to request meeting,” it appears that 18 Plaintiff has filed his letter to Defendant requesting a meet and confer. (ECF No. 70). However, 19 neither of these should have been filed with the Court. The Court considers these filings to be 20 discovery papers under Local Rule 26-7 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(1)(A), which 21 should not be filed with the Court until they are used in the proceeding, unless the Court orders 22 otherwise. 23 Additionally, the Court has already found that Plaintiff has been misusing subpoenas in 24 this case by requesting them before discovery has begun and directing them to Defendant rather 25 than using a discovery request. (ECF No. 65). The Court thus denied Plaintiff’s previous 26 motions to compel responses to these subpoenas and explained, 27 “[s]ubpoenas can only request presence at a deposition or the production of documents from nonparties.” AAA v. Clark County School District, No. 2:20-cv-00195-JAD-BNW, 2022 WL 293236, 1 at *5 (D. Nev. Feb. 1, 2022) (emphasis added). On the other hand, 2 requests for production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, interrogatories under Rule 33, and requests for admission under 3 Rule 36 are appropriately directed to parties in a litigation. 4 (Id. at 2). 5 But Plaintiff’s newest proposed subpoena (ECF No. 66) still suffers from the same 6 deficiencies. The parties do not have an operative discovery plan in place and Plaintiff’s 7 subpoena is directed to Defendant’s counsel. (ECF No. 66). Plaintiff has also not demonstrated 8 that he has met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel. Nor has he explained whether he has 9 attempted to obtain the information he seeks through a discovery request. Without these 10 explanations, it appears that Plaintiff is conflating discovery requests with subpoenas. The Court 11 thus construes Plaintiff’s proposed subpoena to be discovery papers under Local Rule 26-7 and 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(1)(A). Because discovery requests should not be filed with 13 the Court until they are used in the proceeding, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court 14 strikes Plaintiff’s proposed subpoena. 15 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 68 and 70) are 17 denied and stricken as discovery papers. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to strike ECF 18 No. 68 and ECF No. 70 from the docket. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s proposed subpoena (ECF No. 66) is 20 stricken. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to strike ECF No. 66 from the docket. 21 22 DATED: November 15, 2022 23 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27