Zuniga v. Shah

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 JESUS ZUNIGA, Case No. 2:25-cv-00531-CDS-NJK 8 Plaintiff, Order 9 v. [Docket No. 23] 10 INAM SHAH, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ emergency motion for protective order. Docket 13 No. 23.1 Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 26. Defendants filed a reply. Docket No. 27. On 14 September 15, 2025, the Court entered an order vacating the depositions as currently scheduled 15 pending the Court’s ruling on the instant motion. Docket No. 28. The motion is properly resolved 16 without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 17 On August 29, 2025, Plaintiff served the relevant deposition notices on Defendant Sasat 18 Logistics, LLC and Defendants’ expert, Dr. Christopher Chen. See Docket Nos. 23-5, 23-6. On 19 September 4, 2025, Defendants’ counsel sent emails to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting Plaintiff’s 20 withdrawal of the deposition notices. See Docket Nos. 23 at 4; 23-7; 23-8. Defendants’ counsel 21 explained that neither defense counsel nor the deponents were available, and defense counsel was 22 unable to secure a deponent for Sasat Logistics, LLC. See id. On September 8, 2025, counsel for 23 the parties engaged in a meet and confer over the phone. See Docket No. 23 at 4. Plaintiff refused 24 to vacate the noticed depositions. See id. 25 On June 3, 2025, the Court entered an order on a previous dispute between the parties 26 regarding deposition scheduling. Docket No. 20. There, the Court explained that deposition 27 1 The Court shortened the briefing schedule to accommodate the circumstances. See 28 Docket No. 25. 1}, scheduling issues are generally worked out by counsel as a matter of professional courtesy. See 2|| id. at 3-4; see also Local Rule 1-1(c). The Court stated that counsel are expected to strive to be “cooperative, practical and sensible.” Docket No. 20 at 3-4 (citing Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015); Local Rule 1-1(b)). The Court further explained 5| that “[w]orking cooperatively extends to the scheduling of depositions.” Docket No. 20 at 4 (citing PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas, 2022 U.S. Dist. Lexis 86816, at *1 (D. Nev. May 13, 2022) (noting that deposition scheduling is not generally a dispute that should require judicial intervention because 8|| it should be resolved by the parties)). 9 Accordingly, the emergency motion for protective order is GRANTED in part and 10] DENIED in part. Docket No. 23. The parties must work together to schedule the depositions of Defendant Sasat Logistics, LLC’s 30(b)(6) witness and Defendants’ expert, Dr. Christopher Chen. These depositions must be completed no later than October 17, 2025. No other discovery may occur during this period of time. 14 Additionally, the dispositive motions deadline is RESET for November 17, 2025, and the 15] joint proposed pretrial order deadline is RESET for December 17, 2025, or 30 days after resolution 16] of dispositive motions, or by further Court order. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: September 17, 2025 le. Nancy J. Koppe’, * 20 United States-Magist ate Judge □

22 23 24 25 26 27 28