PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 2, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02129
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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. 445, 446] 10 DR. LAILA MINTAS, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Discovery is set to close on January 31, 2024. Docket No. 385 at 2. On December 1, 2023, 13 the PlayUp parties indicated that they would conduct 11 additional depositions. See Docket No. 14 445-1 at ¶¶ 7, 10. On December 8, 2023, Mintas indicated that she would conduct 11 additional 15 depositions. See id. at ¶ 12. The parties have been unable to figure out how to conduct all of these 16 depositions in the time remaining in the discovery period, and the PlayUp parties have now filed 17 an emergency motion for protective order. Docket No. 445; see also Docket No. 446 (motion to 18 shorten time).1 A deposition scheduling conflict is not the type of dispute that should require 19 emergency motion practice. Docket No. 198 at 19; see also Olesczuk v. Citizens One Home Loans, 20 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 153342, at *5-6 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 2016). The Court hereby ORDERS the 21 parties to confer on a schedule for the remaining depositions by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow, January 3, 22

23 1 The motion for protective order raises other arguments too, including whether conducting certain depositions would violate the stay order regarding PlayUp Ltd. and whether service was 24 properly effectuated for certain depositions. The Court denies those aspects of the motion for protective order without prejudice. If relief continues to be sought as to those issues, a renewed 25 motion must be filed in prompt fashion. That renewed motion must include meaningful discussion as to how the movants have standing to raise such arguments, see, e.g., Paws Up Ranch, LLC v. 26 Green, 2013 WL 6184940, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 22, 2013), and whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain such arguments, see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A) (indicating that motions to quash 27 subpoenas are resolved by “the court for the district where compliance is required”). The Court also denies without prejudice the request for fees under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). If the movants continue 28 to seek that relief, they must file a separate motion. 1} 2024. If necessary, the parties may file a request to modify the discovery cutoff such that the depositions may be taken in an orderly fashion. Cf Docket No. 191. Any such request to modify 3] the discovery cutoff on this basis must be filed by January 4, 2024. 4 In light of the above, the motion for protective order and motion to shorten time are 5] DENIED without prejudice. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: January 2, 2024 Nancy J. Koppe 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28