Thames v. Jerry's Nugget, a Nevada corporation

D. Nevada

Thames v. Jerry's Nugget, a Nevada corporation

DecidedJune 4, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00556

StatusUnknown

This text of Thames v. Jerry's Nugget, a Nevada corporation (Thames v. Jerry's Nugget, a Nevada corporation) 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

Thames v. Jerry's Nugget, a Nevada corporation, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 AALIYAH THAMES, Case No. 2:25-cv-00556-RFB-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 16] 9 JERRY’S NUGGET, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Discovery is meant to proceed “largely unsupervised by the district court.” Sali v. Corona 12 Reg. Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 13 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 14 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)). Unless such stipulation interferes with court proceedings or deadlines, parties 15 may agree among themselves to discovery procedures without obtaining judicial approval. Fed. 16 R. Civ. P. 29(b). Permissible extra-judicial discovery agreements may extend to establishing 17 procedures and protections regarding the exchange of confidential discovery material. See, e.g., 18 Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc., 332 F.R.D. 159, 161 (E.D. Penn. 2019) 19 (“Notwithstanding the absence of judicial imprimatur, the parties may agree to maintain 20 confidentiality of discovery materials”); David J. Frank Landscape Cont’g, Inc. v. La Rosa 21 Landscape, 199 F.R.D. 314, 315 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (“The parties are free to enter agreements 22 between themselves regarding how they will disseminate material produced in discovery”).1 When 23 parties seek judicial approval of a discovery agreement that does not require judicial approval, 24 judges act within their discretion to deny such request as unnecessary. See, e.g., Comminey v. 25 Sam’s W. Inc., 2020 WL 2764610, at *1 (D. Nev. May 27, 2020) (overruling objection). 26

27 1 If designated discovery material is later filed with the Court, a proper showing must be made at that point to support any request for sealing or redaction. See, e.g., Ricoh, 332 F.R.D. at 28 161. ] No showing has been made as to why judicial oversight is required for the parties’ 2|| agreement on designation and treatment of confidential discovery material. Docket No. 16. 3 Accordingly, the stipulation regarding designation and treatment of confidential discovery material is DENIED without prejudice. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: June 4, 2025

Nancy J. : ps 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 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

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 AALIYAH THAMES, Case No. 2:25-cv-00556-RFB-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), Order 8 v. [Docket No. 16] 9 JERRY’S NUGGET, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Discovery is meant to proceed “largely unsupervised by the district court.” Sali v. Corona 12 Reg. Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 13 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 14 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)). Unless such stipulation interferes with court proceedings or deadlines, parties 15 may agree among themselves to discovery procedures without obtaining judicial approval. Fed. 16 R. Civ. P. 29(b). Permissible extra-judicial discovery agreements may extend to establishing 17 procedures and protections regarding the exchange of confidential discovery material. See, e.g., 18 Midwest Athletics & Sports All. LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc., 332 F.R.D. 159, 161 (E.D. Penn. 2019) 19 (“Notwithstanding the absence of judicial imprimatur, the parties may agree to maintain 20 confidentiality of discovery materials”); David J. Frank Landscape Cont’g, Inc. v. La Rosa 21 Landscape, 199 F.R.D. 314, 315 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (“The parties are free to enter agreements 22 between themselves regarding how they will disseminate material produced in discovery”).1 When 23 parties seek judicial approval of a discovery agreement that does not require judicial approval, 24 judges act within their discretion to deny such request as unnecessary. See, e.g., Comminey v. 25 Sam’s W. Inc., 2020 WL 2764610, at *1 (D. Nev. May 27, 2020) (overruling objection). 26

27 1 If designated discovery material is later filed with the Court, a proper showing must be made at that point to support any request for sealing or redaction. See, e.g., Ricoh, 332 F.R.D. at 28 161. ] No showing has been made as to why judicial oversight is required for the parties’ 2|| agreement on designation and treatment of confidential discovery material. Docket No. 16. 3 Accordingly, the stipulation regarding designation and treatment of confidential discovery material is DENIED without prejudice. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: June 4, 2025

Nancy J. : ps 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Thames v. Jerry's Nugget, a Nevada corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thames-v-jerrys-nugget-a-nevada-corporation-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack