Mirae Asset Securities Co., Ltd. v. Ryze Renewables Holdings, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01492
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 MIRAE ASSET SECURITIES CO., LTD., 8 Case No. 2:23-cv-01492-APG-NJK Plaintiff, 9 Order v. 10 [Docket No. 189] RYZE RENEWABLES HOLDINGS, LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is non-party Snell and Wilmer’s (“Snell”) emergency motion to 14 quash three deposition subpoenas and/or for a protective order. Docket No. 189. 15 “The filing of emergency motions is disfavored because of the numerous problems they 16 create for the opposing party and the court resolving them.” Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 17 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1140 (D. Nev. 2015) (citing In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 18 191, 193-194 (C.D. Cal. 1989)). “Safeguards that have evolved over many decades are built into 19 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this court.” Mission Power Eng’g Co. 20 v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 491 (C.D. Cal. 1995). A request to bypass the default 21 procedures through the filing of an emergency motion impedes the adversarial process, disrupts 22 the schedules of the Court and opposing counsel, and creates an opportunity for bad faith 23 gamesmanship. Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1140-41. As a result, the Court allows motions to 24 proceed on an emergency basis in only very limited circumstances. See, e.g., Local Rule 7-4(b) 25 (“Emergency motions should be rare”). In addition to various technical requirements, see Local 26 Rule 7-4(a), parties seeking emergency relief must satisfy several substantive requirements. When 27 a party files a motion on an emergency basis, it is within the sole discretion of the Court to 28 determine whether any such matter is, in fact, an emergency. Local Rule 7-4(c); see also Local 1 Rule 26-6(d). Generally speaking, an emergency motion is properly presented to the Court only 2 when the movant has shown (1) that it will be irreparably prejudiced if the Court resolves the 3 motion pursuant to the normal briefing schedule and (2) that the movant is without fault in creating 4 the crisis that requires emergency relief or, at the very least, that the crisis occurred because of 5 excusable neglect. Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1142 (citing Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. at 492). 6 If there is no irreparable prejudice, sufficient justification for bypassing the default briefing 7 schedule does not exist and the motion may be properly decided on a non-expedited basis. 8 Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1142-43. If there is irreparable prejudice but the movant created the 9 crisis, the Court may simply deny the relief sought. Id. at 1143. The relevant inquiry is not whether 10 the opposing party was at fault with respect to the underlying dispute, but rather “[i]t is the creation 11 of the crisis–the necessity for bypassing regular motion procedures–that requires explanation.” 12 Mission Power, 883 F. Supp. at 493. For example, when an attorney knows of the existence of a 13 dispute and unreasonably delays in bringing that dispute to the Court’s attention until the eleventh 14 hour, the attorney has created the emergency situation and the request for relief may be denied 15 outright. See Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1143 (collecting cases). Quite simply, emergency 16 motions “are not intended to save the day for parties who have failed to present requests when they 17 should have.” Intermagnetics America, 101 B.R. at 193; see also Local Rule 7-4(b) (“[The] failure 18 to effectively manage deadlines, discovery, trial, or any other aspect of litigation does not 19 constitute an emergency”). 20 Snell seeks to quash three deposition subpoenas set for January 22, 24, and February 19, 21 2025. Docket No. 189 at 2. Snell submits that it did not learn that Defendant intends to dismiss 22 its counterclaims against Plaintiff in this case until January 14, 2025 and, given the uncertainty of 23 whether this Court will retain jurisdiction, Snell requested that Plaintiff postpone the depositions 24 pending the resolution of this procedural issue. Id. at 2. Plaintiff refused to do so, which led to 25 Snell filing this motion on an emergency basis. Id. 26 While Snell is seeking emergency relief, the circumstances do not justify granting such 27 relief. Therefore, the motion will be briefed according to the default deadlines. Nonetheless, in 28 1} order to consider the motion on its merits, the Court will VACATE the depositions of Mr. Gianelloni, Mr. Roehm, and Mr. Graham pending the Court’s order on Snell’s motion. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: January 21, 2025 Nancy J. 3 6 United-States Magistrate Judge

8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28