TChutima, Inc. v. Bua Group, LLC

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 TCHUTIMA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01130-JCM-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), Order 10 v. [Docket No. 46] 11 BUA GROUP, LLC, 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for sanctions. Docket No. 46. 14 The motion consists in its entirety of 59 lines of discussion spanning less than three pages.1 15 The motion on its face asks for the imposition of sanctions, id. at 1, but it identifies no legal 16 authority on which sanctions may be predicated. Indeed, the motion includes no section regarding 17 governing standards at all. Instead, the motion includes one paragraph of “argument” that indicates 18 that discovery may be sought under Rules 33 and 34, and that the “consequences” for failing to 19 comply are encompassed in Rule 37(a)(3). See Docket No. 46 at 3. Rule 37(a)(3), however, 20 addresses motions to compel and not requests for sanctions. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). 21 The motion also cites one case, but that case also involves a motion to compel and not a motion 22 for sanctions. Bishop v. Potter, 2010 WL 11579259 (D. Nev. Apr. 12, 2010). In short, although 23 Defendant’s motion is seeking sanctions, it does not identify legal authority regarding the 24 imposition of sanctions. 25

26 1 Discovery motions must be fully developed, see, e.g., Reno v. W. Cab Co., 2019 WL 8061214, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2019), which this motion clearly is not. The sparse motion is 27 all the more notable given that Defendant’s reply spans 11 pages. Docket No. 52. Of course, arguments should not be first raised or developed in a reply brief. See, e.g., Brand v. Kijakazi, 575 28 F. Supp. 3d 1265, 1273 (D. Nev. 2021). ] Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Defendant’s motion for sanctions. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: January 7, 2025 4 7 x : — —- Nancy J. K 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28