King v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 STACEY KING, 6 Case No. 2:20-cv-00055-ART-NJK Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 80] LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 9 DEPARTMENT, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay the undersigned’s May 5, 2023, order 12 imposing sanctions. Docket No. 80. See also Docket No. 79 (sanctions order). Defendants have 13 not filed a response and the time to do so has now passed. See Docket. 14 The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendants $2,435 by June 30, 2023, as a sanction for 15 his abusive and bad-faith discovery conduct. Docket No. 79 at 18. Plaintiff now seeks to stay the 16 compliance deadline pending resolution of his objection to the sanctions order. Docket No. 80 at 17 2. See also Docket No. 82 (Plaintiff’s objection). 18 Failure to respond to a motion constitutes consent to the granting of the motion. Local 19 Rule 7-2(d). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to stay the undersigned’s May 20 5, 2023, order imposing sanctions.1 Docket No. 80. 21 1 A magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order may only be modified or set aside by a 22 district judge if the order is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 23 “[C]ourts adjudicate motions to stay a magistrate judge's non-dispositive order by analyzing: (1) whether the movant is likely to succeed on its objection; (2) whether 24 the movant will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of a stay; (3) whether the other parties will be substantially injured by a stay; and (4) where the public interest 25 lies.” 26 PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 10967692, at *3 (D. Nev. 2022). The deferential standard of review means a party seeking to stay a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive 27 pretrial order faces “a steep hill to climb.” Id. 28 Plaintiff’s conclusory submissions fail to clear the “difficult hurdles” required to stay a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order. Id. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to stay 1 Plaintiff must pay to Defendants any sanctions amount upheld no later than 14 days after the issuance of the order resolving his objection. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: June 27, 2023 Nancy, J. Kipe 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 solely because Defendants have consented to the motion being granted by failing to file a response. This order should not be construed as any sort of opinion regarding the merits of Plaintiff's motion 28] to stay or objection to the Court’s sanctions order.