Kohli v. Dayal

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 ERIC KOHLI, Case No. 2:20-cv-0538-CDS-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order v. [Docket No. 96] 10] AJAY G. DAYAL, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Brandon Phillips’ motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendants, which purports to include a response to Plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions. Docket No. 96. The Court will resolve the motion to withdraw in the ordinary course. In the interim, Attorney Phillips remains counsel of record and must comply with all of his obligations such. The purported response to the motion for discovery sanctions is deficient on several 17] levels, including that it is improperly presented within another document, but see Local Rule IC 18] 2-2(b), and does not include meaningfully developed argument, but see Kor Media Grp., LLC v. 19] Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013). Making matters worse, this is not the first time 20] that Attorney Phillips has failed to file proper briefing on this issue. See Docket No. 91 at 2 21] (“Defendants’ opposition brief borders on the non-responsive” and “Defendants are also cautioned 22] that they must provide a fulsome response to any such renewed motion”). In light of the 23] circumstances, Attorney Phillips and Defendants are ORDERED to file a properly developed 24|| response to the motion for sanctions by September 9, 2022. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: September 6, 2022 Om ct Nancy J. Kop pe 28 United States Magistrate Judge