Internet Sports International, LTD. v. Amelco USA, LLC

Opinion

2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 INTERNET SPORTS INTERNATIONAL, 7 LTD., Case No. 2:23-cv-00893-ART-NJK

8 Plaintiff(s), Order

9 v. [Docket Nos. 297, 298]

10 AMELCO USA, LLC, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for case-dispositive discovery sanctions, 13 which they filed on May 1, 2025. Docket Nos. 297, 298. Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 14 306. Defendants filed a reply. Docket No. 309. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. 15 See Local Rule 78-1. 16 The dispositive motion deadline expired on November 1, 2024. Docket No. 130. As the 17 name suggests, that deadline applies to all dispositive motions, including motions seeking 18 dispositive discovery sanctions. E.g., Garcia v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 2019 WL 8750275, at *1 19 (D. Nev. May 23, 2019) (citing Hall v. Schumacher, 2011 WL 4458845, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 20 2011)). When a motion is filed after the corresponding case management deadline has expired, 21 the movant is implicitly seeking relief from that deadline and the motion must be supported by the 22 appropriate showing for such relief. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recs., Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 23 (9th Cir. 1992). Requests to modify an already-expired case management deadline must be 24 supported by a showing of both good cause and excusable neglect. See Branch Banking & Trust 25 Co. v. DMSI, LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764-65 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Local Rule 26-3. Courts may 26 sua sponte enforce the case management deadlines established in their own scheduling orders. 27 Bonavito v. Nev. Prop. 1 LLC, 2014 WL 5364077, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2014); see also Garcia 28 v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 332 F.R.D. 351, 354 n.2 (D. Nev. 2019). ] Curiously, the instant motion appears to recognize that dispositive motions cannot be filed at this juncture of the case without obtaining relief from the dispositive motion deadline, see 3, Docket No. 297 at 16, but the instant dispositive motion does not in any direct fashion seek relief from the expired dispositive motion deadline with articulated argument as to good cause and 5], excusable neglect. 6 Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants’ motion for case- 7|| dispositive sanctions.! 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May 29, 2025 Nancy J:.Koppe 1] United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27), ——__________ ' The Court expresses no opinion herein as to whether the circumstances might suffice to 28]| show good cause and excusable neglect.