United States of America v. PCPLV LLC dba Pinnacle Compounding Pharmacy; et al.

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 United States of America, Case No. 2:21-cv-00184-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 PCPLV LLC dba Pinnacle Compounding 9 Pharmacy; et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Before the Court are two of the Plaintiff United States’ motions to extend time to respond 13 to the Pharmacy Defendants’1 discovery requests (ECF Nos. 144, 147), the Pharmacy 14 Defendants’ motion for order to show cause (ECF No. 146), Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to 15 respond to the motion for order to show cause (ECF No. 151), and Plaintiff’s motion to extend 16 discovery (ECF No. 157). The Pharmacy Defendants have vehemently opposed each of 17 Plaintiff’s motions to extend. No other Defendant2 has opposed those motions. Because the 18 Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for its requested extensions, it grants Plaintiff’s 19 motions to extend. Because the Pharmacy Defendants’ motion for an order to show cause does 20 not demonstrate that Plaintiff violated a Court order, the Court denies it. 21 I. Plaintiff’s motions to extend time to respond to discovery (ECF Nos. 144, 147). 22 Plaintiff has filed two motions to extend its deadline to respond to discovery requests 23 propounded by the Pharmacy Defendants on December 17, 2025. (ECF Nos. 144, 147). Its 24 responses were initially due January 16, 2026, with substantial completion of its rolling 25

26 1 The Pharmacy Defendants include PCPLV LLC dba Pinnacle Compounding Pharmacy; Ofir Ventura; Cecilia Ventura; and Brandon Jimenez. 27 2 The remaining Defendants include Robert Gomez; Gomez & Associates, Inc.; Rock’n Rob 1 production of documents due April 16, 2026. (ECF No. 158-1) (Pharmacy Defendants’ first set 2 of requests for production specifying that rolling production was to begin within thirty days and 3 be substantially complete within 120 days); (ECF No. 158-2) (Pharmacy Defendants’ first set of 4 interrogatories); (ECF No. 158-3) (Pharmacy Defendants’ first set of requests for admission). On 5 January 16, 2026, Plaintiff moved for an extension until February 15, 2026, which extension the 6 Court granted. (ECF No. 143). Given the age of the case and the Pharmacy Defendants’ 7 vehement objection, the Court informed the parties that it would closely scrutinize future 8 extension requests. (Id.). 9 Plaintiff moved for a fourteen-day extension on February 17, 2026.3 (ECF No. 144). It 10 sought until March 3, 2026, to respond to the Pharmacy Defendants’ requests. (Id.). It explained 11 that it needed to meet and confer with the Pharmacy Defendants on certain topics, that it had 12 identified substantial responsive material that it needed time to properly review and produce, and 13 that given its heavy immigration caseload its counsel lacked the resources to meet the deadline. 14 (Id.). The Pharmacy Defendants vigorously opposed the motion, arguing that Plaintiff should 15 have found the additional responsive information sooner and that the influx of immigration cases 16 is not a justification for its delay. (ECF No. 145). 17 On March 10, 2026, Plaintiff moved for an extension until April 10, 2026, to respond to 18 the Pharmacy Defendants’ requests. (ECF No. 147). It explained that it had produced significant 19 documents, but that it had experienced a change in counsel. (Id.). It also explained that its 20 current counsel had training obligations that required him to be out of the office. (Id.). The 21 Pharmacy Defendants opposed the motion, asserting that the delay is prejudicial given the age of 22 the case and requesting case terminating sanctions as a remedy. (ECF No. 152). 23 The Court has closely considered both sides’ arguments and finds that Plaintiff’s position 24 is more persuasive. While Plaintiff was unable to meet certain of its extended deadlines, the 25 Court finds that it has shown good cause for this failure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). And its 26 extensions, albeit spanning multiple months, are commensurate with the volume of documents it 27 1 has produced, the amount of review required, and the allocation of office resources that it has 2 described. Moreover, its extension requests were within the timeline that the Pharmacy 3 Defendants had envisioned—by April 16, 2026—for Plaintiff to substantially produce its 4 documents. While the Court recognizes the Pharmacy Defendants’ desire to move this case 5 forward, it does not find the prejudice of the delay they are experiencing related to these 6 discovery requests to warrant denying the Untied States’ motions or to justify case ending 7 sanctions.4 The Court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motions nunc pro tunc given Plaintiff’s 8 assertion that it has since produced its responses to the Pharmacy Defendants’ discovery requests. 9 (ECF No. 157). 10 II. The Pharmacy Defendants’ motion for order to show cause (ECF No. 146). 11 The Pharmacy Defendants move the Court to order Plaintiff to show cause why it should 12 not be held in contempt for its failure to meet the Court’s extended production deadline of 13 February 15, 2026, and for producing documents to the Pharmacy Defendants that are primarily 14 the Pharmacy Defendants’ own records. (ECF No. 146). Goldsmith filed a non-opposition to the 15 motion. (ECF Nos. 148, 149). Plaintiff responded that it has produced substantial document 16 productions in accordance with what it believed were the parties’ agreements on timing5 and has 17 sought an extension of the February 15, 2026, deadline. (ECF No. 154). It adds that the 18 documents it produced are necessarily the Pharmacy Defendants’ own records because that is 19 precisely what the Pharmacy Defendants sought in their requests for production of documents 20 underlying Plaintiff’s investigation. (Id.). The Pharmacy Defendants did not file a reply. 21 Under 18 U.S.C. § 401, “[a] court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine 22 or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, 23 as…[d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.” 24 Civil contempt consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure 25

26 4 The Pharmacy Defendants did not file a separate motion for this relief. See LR IC 2-2(b). 27 5 Counsel for Plaintiff asserts that during the parties’ meet and confers he believed that the Pharmacy Defendants’ counsel had agreed to him producing documents on March 6, 2026, with 1 to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply. GoVideo, Inc. v. Motion Picture 2 Ass’n of Am., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). The contempt need not be willful and there is no 3 good faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a court order. Id. But a person should 4 not be held in contempt if his action appears to be based on a good faith and reasonable 5 interpretation of a court’s order. Id. The party alleging contempt must demonstrate the alleged 6 contemnor violated the court’s order by clear and convincing evidence. Id. 7 Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court order, or to 8 compensate the party pursuing the contempt action for injuries resulting from the contemptuous 9 behavior, or both.” Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986). 10 “Compensatory awards are limited to actual losses sustained as a result of the contumacy.” Id. 11 (emphasis in original) (internal quotations omitted). The civil contempt power of a magistrate 12 judge is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(e), which provides as follows: 13 the magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a district judge and may serve or cause to be served, upon any person whose 14 behavior is brought into question under this paragraph, an order 15 requiring such person to appear before a district judge upon a day certain to show cause why that person should not be adjudged in 16 contempt by reason of the facts so certified. 17 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B). 18 Here, it is not clear to the Court that Plaintiff failed to comply with a Court order such that 19 contempt is justified. Plaintiff sought, and obtained, an extension to respond to discovery. (ECF 20 No. 143). When that deadline expired, it sought another extension. (ECF No. 144). This is a 21 common practice in this district and was not an unreasonable request. Moreover, the Court has 22 granted that request. Additionally, the Pharmacy Defendants did not address Plaintiff’s argument 23 that it produced the Pharmacy Defendants’ own documents in response to discovery because that 24 is what the Pharmacy Defendants’ request sought. And the Court does not find the Pharmacy 25 Defendants’ assertion that doing so was improper to be sufficient clear and convincing evidence 26 that Plaintiff violated a Court order. So, the Court denies the Pharmacy Defendants’ motion for 27 order to show cause. III. Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to respond to Pharmacy Defendants’ motion for 1 order to show cause (ECF No. 151). 2 3 Plaintiff sought a nine-day extension to respond to the Pharmacy Defendants’ motion for 4 an order to show cause. (ECF No. 151). It explained that its counsel was completing training and 5 so would be unable to timely respond. (Id.). The Pharmacy Defendants objected on the basis of 6 prejudice. (ECF No. 152). The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the extension 7 and grants it nunc pro tunc. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 8 IV. Plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery (ECF No. 157). 9 Plaintiff moves to extend discovery by sixty days. (ECF No. 157). In its motion, it points 10 out that each party but the Pharmacy Defendants agreed to the extension. (Id.). It further 11 explains that it now has new counsel who is relatively new to the office and needs time to become 12 familiar with the matter. (Id.). It adds that it still requires time to propound its own discovery 13 requests and that the Defendants have yet to take depositions. (Id.). It further points out that it 14 has since responded to the Pharmacy Defendants’ discovery requests. (Id.). The Pharmacy 15 Defendants oppose and argue that Plaintiff’s responses to its discovery requests are insufficient 16 and that it is Plaintiff’s failure to produce documents or propound discovery requests that have 17 resulted in Defendants not conducting depositions. (Id.). The Pharmacy Defendants further 18 argue that continuous changes of counsel cannot justify the delay Plaintiff has demonstrated in 19 this case. (Id.). 20 The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the relatively brief extension it 21 seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court does not find that Plaintiff has unduly delayed and 22 is persuaded by the fact that no other party has opposed the extension request but the Pharmacy 23 Defendants. The Court does not find the Pharmacy Defendants’ arguments regarding Plaintiff’s 24 production to constitute a reason to deny the request. The Court therefore grants the motion and 25 extends discovery. 26 /// 27 /// 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to extend time (ECF Nos. 144, 2 147, 151, 157) are granted. The below deadlines shall govern discovery: 3 4 Discovery cutoff: July 10, 2026 5 Dispositive motions: August 7, 2026 6 Pretrial order: September 8, 20266 7 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Pharmacy Defendants’ motion for an order to 9 show cause (ECF No. 146) is denied. 10 11 DATED: June 1, 2026, 12 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 6 Under Local Rule 26-1(b)(5), if dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until thirty days after decision on the dispositive motions or