Hope Lee Esposito v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

D. Nevada

Hope Lee Esposito v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

DecidedOctober 3, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00588

StatusUnknown

This text of Hope Lee Esposito v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Hope Lee Esposito v. Costco Wholesale Corporation) 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

Hope Lee Esposito v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 Hope Lee Esposito, Case No. 2:25-cv-00588-MMD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket No. 25] 10 Costco Wholesale Corporation, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for costs premised on Defendant’s failure to 13 appear at a scheduled site inspection. Docket No. 25. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized the 14 importance of ensuring that sanctions orders identify applicable legal authority. See Weissman v. 15 Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999) (a court imposing sanctions “must clearly 16 delineate under which authority it acts to insure that the attendant requirements are met”); Keegan 17 Mgmt. Co. Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 435 (9th Cir. 1996) (“For a sanction to be validly imposed, the 18 conduct must be sanctionable under the authority relied on”) (internal quotation marks and citation 19 omitted).1 Plaintiff’s barebones motion is predicated on Rule 37(d)(1)(A), which the motion only 20 partially quotes. See Docket No. 25 at 5. That rule provides in pertinent part that sanctions may 21 be imposed if “a party, after being properly served with interrogatories under Rule 33 or a request 22 for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response.” Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii) (emphasis added). No explanation is advanced as to how a failure to appear 24 25

26 1 The Court is mindful that the motion seeks to recover costs in the amount of $850, which is a relatively small amount in comparison to the value of attorney time. Cf. Marrocco v. Hill, 291 27 F.R.D. 586, 589 (D. Nev. 2013). Regardless of whether the game is worth the candle, however, the movant is still required to explain why she is entitled to the relief sought under the legal 28 authority cited. 1} for an inspection falls within the scope of this rule. Accordingly, the motion for costs is DENIED 2|)| without prejudice. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 3, 2025

Nancy JN “oppe 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 Hope Lee Esposito, Case No. 2:25-cv-00588-MMD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket No. 25] 10 Costco Wholesale Corporation, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for costs premised on Defendant’s failure to 13 appear at a scheduled site inspection. Docket No. 25. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized the 14 importance of ensuring that sanctions orders identify applicable legal authority. See Weissman v. 15 Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999) (a court imposing sanctions “must clearly 16 delineate under which authority it acts to insure that the attendant requirements are met”); Keegan 17 Mgmt. Co. Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 435 (9th Cir. 1996) (“For a sanction to be validly imposed, the 18 conduct must be sanctionable under the authority relied on”) (internal quotation marks and citation 19 omitted).1 Plaintiff’s barebones motion is predicated on Rule 37(d)(1)(A), which the motion only 20 partially quotes. See Docket No. 25 at 5. That rule provides in pertinent part that sanctions may 21 be imposed if “a party, after being properly served with interrogatories under Rule 33 or a request 22 for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response.” Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii) (emphasis added). No explanation is advanced as to how a failure to appear 24 25

26 1 The Court is mindful that the motion seeks to recover costs in the amount of $850, which is a relatively small amount in comparison to the value of attorney time. Cf. Marrocco v. Hill, 291 27 F.R.D. 586, 589 (D. Nev. 2013). Regardless of whether the game is worth the candle, however, the movant is still required to explain why she is entitled to the relief sought under the legal 28 authority cited. 1} for an inspection falls within the scope of this rule. Accordingly, the motion for costs is DENIED 2|)| without prejudice. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 3, 2025

Nancy JN “oppe 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)

Hope Lee Esposito v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hope-lee-esposito-v-costco-wholesale-corporation-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack