1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01552-KJD-NJK Document 18 Filed 02/09/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`
`
`BALUMA, S.A.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VLADISLAV DAVYDOV,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-01552-KJD-NJK
`
`ORDER
`
`[Docket No. 17]
`
`
`Pending before the Court is Defendant’s renewed motion to extend discovery deadlines,
`
`which was filed on an emergency basis. Docket No. 17.
`
`“The filing of emergency motions is disfavored because of the numerous problems they
`
`create for the opposing party and the court resolving them.” Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc.,
`
`141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1140 (D. Nev. 2015) (citing In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R.
`
`191, 193–94 (C.D. Cal. 1989)). “Safeguards that have evolved over many decades are built into
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this court.” Mission Power Eng’g Co.
`
`v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 491 (C.D. Cal. 1995). A request to bypass the default
`
`procedures through the filing of an emergency motion impedes the adversarial process, disrupts
`
`the schedules of the Court and opposing counsel, and creates an opportunity for bad faith
`
`gamesmanship. Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d at 1140–41. As a result, the Court allows motions to
`
`proceed on an emergency basis in only very limited circumstances. See, e.g., LR 7-4(b)
`
`(“Emergency motions should be rare”).
`
`Here, Defendant submits that good cause exists to consider the instant motion on an
`
`expedited basis. Docket No. 17 at 4. However, Defendant fails to discuss the “nature of the
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01552-KJD-NJK Document 18 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`emergency.” LR 7-4(a)(1).1 In requesting an extension of discovery deadlines, Defendant merely
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`submits that the instant motion should be heard on an expedited basis so the parties can “fully
`
`utilize the additional time should the Court be amenable to this request.” Docket No. 17 at 4.
`
`These circumstances do not justify emergency treatment whereby the motion cuts to the front of
`
`the line ahead of the many other matters pending before the Court. Cf. Mazzeo v. Gibbons, 2010
`
`WL 3020021, at *1 (D. Nev. July 27, 2010) (explaining that “other cases, motions filed, scheduled
`
`hearings and settlement conferences do not afford me the luxury of dropping everything to hear a
`
`party’s perceived ‘emergency’” and instead waiting to resolve the motion until it “has worked its
`
`way up the tall stack of matters on my desk”). A party’s “failure to effectively manage deadlines,
`
`discovery, trial, or any other aspect of litigation does not constitute an emergency.” LR 7-4(b).
`
`Accordingly, the Court declines to give the motion emergency consideration. Instead, the
`
`motion will be briefed pursuant to the default briefing schedule and will be decided in the ordinary
`
`13
`
`course.2
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: February 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________
`Nancy J. Koppe
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`1 Defendant fails to comply with other requirements in LR 7-4 as well; however, the Court
`need not address them.
`
`2 The Court expresses no opinion herein as to the merits of the motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.