PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7| PLAYUP, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9] v. [Docket Nos. 100, 101, 102] 10] DR. LAILA MINTAS, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to quash, motion for protective order, and 13] motion to shorten time related to a subpoena to Bally’s Corporation. Docket Nos. 100, 101, 102. Although it appears that both sides recognize that the instant motion practice may overlap with the 15] issues already before the Court in other motion practice regarding a subpoena to Sportradar US, 16] they have not been able to agree yet on whether to avoid this new motion practice. See, e.g., 17] Docket No. 102 at 5-7. The Court reminds counsel that they are supposed to be engaging in 18] discovery with an eye towards cooperation and common sense. See Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, 19] 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015); see also Docket No. 51 at 3. Defendant’s motion 20] to quash, motion for protective order, and motion to shorten time (Docket Nos. 100, 101, 102) are 21} all DENIED without prejudice. Counsel must continue conferring. No later than noon on April 11, 2022, counsel must either (1) file a stipulation that the Bally’s subpoena will be held in 23] abeyance until the Court rules on the previously-filed motion practice with respect to the 24] Sportradar US subpoena, or (2) renew the motion practice on the Bally’s subpoena. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: April 8, 2022 Je Nancy J. Keppe, * 28 United States Magistrate Judge