Post v. SOC, LLC

D. Nevada

Post v. SOC, LLC

DecidedMay 5, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00062

StatusUnknown

This text of Post v. SOC, LLC (Post v. SOC, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Post v. SOC, LLC, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 DARLENE POST, et al., 7 Case No. 2:25-cv-00062-GMN-NJK Plaintiffs, 8 Order v. 9 [Docket No. 27] SOC, LLC, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated protective order. Docket No. 27. On 13 April 4, 2025, the Court denied without prejudice the parties’ first stipulated protective order, 14 holding that no showing was made as to why judicial oversight is required for the parties’ 15 agreement on designation and treatment of confidential discovery material. Docket No. 21. On 16 April 24, 2024, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for protective order as Defendants failed, 17 again, to make the required showing as to why judicial oversight is need. Docket No. 26. As the 18 pending request has already been considered and denied, the parties’ stipulation is properly 19 construed as a request for reconsideration. 20 “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Koninklijke Philips 21 Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 2007) (citation and internal 22 quotations omitted). The Local Rules provide the applicable standards in addressing whether the 23 Court should reconsider an interlocutory order, indicating that reconsideration may be appropriate 24 if (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion or 25 response was filed, (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 26 or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a). 27 28 ] The parties are well aware that, unless the parties’ agreement interferes with court 2|| proceedings or deadlines, the parties may stipulate to discovery procedures without obtaining 3] judicial approval. See Docket No. 21 at 1; see also Docket No. 26 at 1. see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 29. 4| The instant stipulation fails, for the third time, to make the required showing as to why judicial 5] oversight is needed. Further, the stipulation fails to identify the governing rule for reconsideration, fails to outline the applicable standards, and fails to provide meaningful discussion as to why relief 7| should be granted. More specifically, the parties make no showing as to how any of the 8|| enumerated grounds for reconsideration could apply here. 9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ stipulated protective order. Docket No. 27. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: May 5, 2025 , 12 x ZN an Nancy J>K8ppe 13 ‘United States. Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 DARLENE POST, et al., 7 Case No. 2:25-cv-00062-GMN-NJK Plaintiffs, 8 Order v. 9 [Docket No. 27] SOC, LLC, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated protective order. Docket No. 27. On 13 April 4, 2025, the Court denied without prejudice the parties’ first stipulated protective order, 14 holding that no showing was made as to why judicial oversight is required for the parties’ 15 agreement on designation and treatment of confidential discovery material. Docket No. 21. On 16 April 24, 2024, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for protective order as Defendants failed, 17 again, to make the required showing as to why judicial oversight is need. Docket No. 26. As the 18 pending request has already been considered and denied, the parties’ stipulation is properly 19 construed as a request for reconsideration. 20 “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Koninklijke Philips 21 Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 2007) (citation and internal 22 quotations omitted). The Local Rules provide the applicable standards in addressing whether the 23 Court should reconsider an interlocutory order, indicating that reconsideration may be appropriate 24 if (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion or 25 response was filed, (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 26 or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a). 27 28 ] The parties are well aware that, unless the parties’ agreement interferes with court 2|| proceedings or deadlines, the parties may stipulate to discovery procedures without obtaining 3] judicial approval. See Docket No. 21 at 1; see also Docket No. 26 at 1. see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 29. 4| The instant stipulation fails, for the third time, to make the required showing as to why judicial 5] oversight is needed. Further, the stipulation fails to identify the governing rule for reconsideration, fails to outline the applicable standards, and fails to provide meaningful discussion as to why relief 7| should be granted. More specifically, the parties make no showing as to how any of the 8|| enumerated grounds for reconsideration could apply here. 9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ stipulated protective order. Docket No. 27. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: May 5, 2025 , 12 x ZN an Nancy J>K8ppe 13 ‘United States. Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Post v. SOC, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/post-v-soc-llc-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack