Hope Lee Esposito v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

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

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 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 authority cited. 1} for an inspection falls within the scope of this rule. Accordingly, the motion for costs is DENIED 2|)| without prejudice. Dated: October 3, 2025

Nancy JN “oppe United States Magistrate Judge