Quimby v. Stevens

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 RUTH QUIMBY, 8 Case No. 2:19-cv-02181-JCM-NJK Plaintiff, 9 Order v. 10 [Docket Nos. 44, 45] MICHAEL STEVENS, et al., Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motions to set witness fees for the depositions 14] of Dr. Thomas Vater and Dr. Firooz Mashhood. Docket Nos. 44, 45. No response was filed. See Docket. Accordingly, the motions are properly granted as unopposed. See Local Rule 7-2(d). 16 Although Defendants submit that the hourly rates of the witnesses are unreasonable, they 17] fail to submit points and authorities to support their request for reasonable rates. See Docket Nos. 18] 44, 45. The Court declines to determine specific rates without such information. See Kor Media 191 Group, LLC v. Green, 297 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (Courts only consider well developed arguments). 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions. Docket Nos. 44, 45. Defendants 21] must file a motion for the Court to calculate reasonable expert witness fees, addressing the 22|| appropriate factors and case law, no later than November 16, 2021. Plaintiff's response and any 23] reply will be briefed according to the Court’s default briefing schedule. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: November 2, 2021 26 LAN E— ey Nancy J.Koppe\ 27 United States.Magistrate Judge 28