House v. TH Foods, Inc.

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Preston House, Case No. 2:24-cv-01326-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 TH Foods, Inc., 9 Defendant. 10 11 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Preston House’s motion to compel (ECF No. 169), 12 motion to clarify and preclude use of deposition preparation notes (ECF No. 180), and motion to 13 shorten time (ECF No. 189). 14 Plaintiff’s motion to compel does not include a declaration setting forth the details and 15 results of Plaintiff’s meet and confer conference with Defendant about each disputed discovery 16 request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); LR 26-6(c). So, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to 17 compel without prejudice.1 18 Plaintiff’s motion to clarify and preclude use of deposition preparation notes really asks 19 the Court to reconsider its prior order compelling Plaintiff to produce his deposition notes. (ECF 20 No. 180). While Plaintiff asserts that he is not seeking reconsideration, but a “narrow 21 clarification on the use of [his] notes at later stages of litigation,” Plaintiff’s arguments that the 22 documents are protected work product are repetitive of his prior arguments. Compare (ECF No. 23 111) with (ECF No. 180). So, to the extent he asks the Court to revisit the issue of whether his 24 25 1 Because the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and because Defendant does not 26 separately move for sanctions on this issue, the Court does not consider Defendant’s arguments 27 regarding Plaintiff’s apparently hallucinated or improperly cited case law at this stage. See LR IC 2-2(b) (explaining that, for each type of relief requested or purpose of a document, a separate 1 notes are work product, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its prior decision. But Plaintiff does 2 not properly brief the standard for reconsideration or provide legitimate reasons for the Court to 3 reconsider its decision. See LR 59-1 (addressing the standards for motions for reconsideration). 4 To the extent Plaintiff asks the Court to determine how Defendant may use Plaintiff’s 5 notes at some future stage of litigation, Plaintiff’s request is premature. Plaintiff has not 6 identified how Defendant has attempted to “use” the documents or why that particular use is 7 improper. Without more, Plaintiff is essentially seeking an advisory opinion involving “advance 8 expressions of legal judgment” where issues lack “clear concreteness.” U.S. v. Fruehauf, 365 9 U.S. 146, 157 (1961). However, “[t]he rule against advisory opinions is the oldest and most 10 consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest 11 Serv., 925 F.3d 1041, 1047 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The 12 Court declines to issue the advisory opinion Plaintiff seeks and denies his motion. 13 Plaintiff also moves the Court to consider his motions for protective order over 14 Defendant’s depositions of third parties Johanna Gastelum and Zhibek Alkanova on an 15 emergency basis, pointing out that the depositions are scheduled for September 30, 2025. (ECF 16 No. 189). The Court does not find that emergency consideration is necessary. See LR 7-4(c). 17 and Plaintiff has not included a certification that “after participation in the meet-and-confer 18 process to resolve the dispute, [Plaintiff] has been unable to resolve the matter without court 19 action.” See LR 7-4(a)(3). So, the Court denies the motion. Response and reply briefs will be 20 due in the ordinary course. The Court will further stay the depositions of Gastelum and Alkanova 21 until the Court decides Plaintiff’s motions for protective order. 22 Finally, Plaintiff has filed a “notice of supplemental authority.” (ECF No. 186). Plaintiff 23 has filed this supplement without leave of Court. See LR 7-2(g). So, the Court strikes it. See id. 24 25 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 169) is 26 denied without prejudice. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to clarify and preclude use of 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time (ECF No. 189) is 2 denied. Response and reply briefs are due in the ordinary course. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the depositions of Johanna Gastelum and Zhibek 4 Alkanova are stayed until the Court decides Plaintiff’s motions for protective order. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to strike 6 Plaintiff’s notice of supplemental authority (ECF No. 186). 7 8 DATED: September 22, 2025 9 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27