United States v. Tucker

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 Case No. 2:21-cv-02049-JCM-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), Order 10] v. [Docket No. 30] 11} CHRISTOPHER TUCKER, 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is the Government’s motion to compel discovery. Docket No. 14] 30. Defendant filed a response. Docket No. 31. The Government filed a reply. Docket No. 32. Defendant’s response includes no legal authority of any kind, see Docket No. 31, which constitutes 16] consent to the granting of the motion, Local Rule 7-2(d) (failure to file “points and authorities” to 17] oppose a motion constitutes consent to the granting of the motion). Accordingly, the motion to 18] compel is GRANTED.' Defendant must provide responsive documents by November 23, 2022. 20 Dated: November 9, 2022 21 7 ~~, Nancy J. 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 ' The Court declines to address the Government’s request for costs, which it raises in the motion in a single sentence. See Docket No. 30 at 10; see also Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013) (courts only address arguments that are meaningfully developed). The Court declines to address Defendant’s request to add a witness, which he 26] improperly includes within his responsive brief to the motion to compel. See Docket No. 31 at 4- 5; see also Local Rule IC 2-2(b) (separate documents must be filed for different purposes); Underwood vy. O'Reilly Auto Enterps., LLC, 2022 WL 1184883, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 20, 2022) (discussing Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 132101, at *2 28] (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2018)).