Yu v. Parmley

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 DENNIS YU, an individual Case No. 2:21-cv-01568-ART-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 TRISTAN PARMLEY, an individual

8 Defendant.

9 TRISTAN PARMLEY, an individual; CHIROREVENUE, a Nevada 10 Corporation,

11 Third-Party Plaintiffs,

12 v.

13 DENNIS YU, an individual; DOES I through X and ROE CORPORATIONS I, 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Tristen Parmley 16 Should Not be Held in Contempt. ECF No. 78. The Court considered the Motion, Response (ECF 17 No. 80), and Reply (ECF No.81). 18 There is no basis for a finding of contempt in this case. In sum, Plaintiff contends Defendant 19 failed to comply with the Court’s May 8, 2025 Order (ECF No. 76) requiring responses to Plaintiff’s 20 discovery by May 29, 2025. However, and despite detailing how Plaintiff never effectively served 21 discovery on Defendant (ECF No. 80 at 2-3), Defendant states counsel’s office mailed responses to 22 Plaintiff’s discovery requests on May 29, 2025. This is confirmed in a declaration sworn under 23 penalty of perjury. ECF No. 80-1. While Plaintiff argues the contrary, there is nothing before the 24 Court that supports the conclusion that Defendant (through his counsel) has misrepresented a 25 fundamental fact to the Court. Nor is there anything to support the conclusion that Defendant 26 ignored the Court’s Order. 27 A party seeking an order of contempt has the burden of showing by clear and convincing 1 Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir.1999). Plaintiff has not carried his burden. Thus, the Motion 2 seeking an order to show cause why Defendant should not be held in contempt is denied. However, 3 because Plaintiff contends he did not receive the discovery responses mailed to him, the Court 4 requires Defendant to remail the responses to Plaintiff no later than September 19, 2025. 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Tristen Parmley Should Not 6 be Held in Contempt (ECF No. 78) is DENIED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must remail Plaintiff the responses to discovery 8 requests no later than September 19, 2025. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Defendant has produced documents without 10 identifying to what responses the documents respond, Defendant must include this information in 11 his September 19, 2025 mailing. 12 Dated this 12th day of September, 2025. 13

14 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27