Tomahawk Manufacturing, Inc. v. Spherical Industries, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 TOMAHAWK MANUFACTURING, INC., 7 et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01007-APG-NJK

8 Plaintiff(s), Order

9 v. [Docket No. 86]

10 SPHERICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed emergency motion for a protective order 13 concerning the restriction on sensitive materials for experts who are themselves competitors. 14 Docket No. 86. 15 Plaintiffs’ motion is supported by a single legal citation articulating the uncontroversial 16 position that the Court has broad discretion to fashion a protective order. Id. at 3. The motion 17 contains no legal authority whatsoever regarding the actual issue in dispute, however, despite the 18 fact that cursory legal research reveals a number of decisions on this issue from courts within the 19 Ninth Circuit.1 The parties were required to conduct this legal research themselves and to discuss 20 it during the meet-and-confer. See, e.g., Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co., 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 21 (D. Nev. 1993). Whether they did so is unclear from the papers. Such legal research also should 22 have been discussed in the motion practice itself. See, e.g., On Demand Direct Response, LLC v. 23 McCart-Pollak, 2018 WL 2014067, at *1 n.2 (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2018) (explaining that discovery 24 motions are not exempt from the requirement to present well-developed legal argument). 25 Accordingly, the renewed emergency motion for protective order is DENIED without prejudice. 26 27 1 As explained by former United States Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen, a magistrate judge is not “the Maytag repairman of federal judges desperately hoping for something to do.” Mazzeo 28 v. Gibbons, 2010 WL 3020021, at *1 (D. Nev. July 27, 2010). The Court declines to provide its own legal research to the parties herein because that is the job of counsel in the first instance. ] If the parties have not discussed the case law on the specific issue in dispute, then they must engage in further conferral efforts by 5:00 p.m. on September 8, 2023. Any renewed motion must address such legal authority and must be filed by September 11, 2023. The response thereto 4|| must be filed by September 13, 2023, and any reply must be filed by September 14, 2023.7 6 Dated: September 6, 2023 Nancy J. Koppe\. 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27), ——__________ ? Counsel should note that any briefing deadlines automatically generated by CMECF do 28] not apply and, instead, the deadlines set herein govern. Local Rule IC 3-1(d).