United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court is a motion for protective order filed by
Defendant Pigeat on an emergency basis. Docket No. 223. The
motion relates to a deposition scheduled to take place on
February 9, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada. See Id. at
53. Defendant Pigeat submits that she is financially unable
to travel to Las Vegas, and has tried unsuccessfully to
convince Plaintiff to hold the deposition in a location
closer to her home in Canada. See Id. at 4-6.
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 Am., Inc., 101 B.R.
191, 193-194 (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. Cont'l 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.2d at 1140-41. As a result, the Court allows motions
to proceed on an emergency basis in only very limited
motions must as a threshold matter meet several technical
requirements outlined in the local rules. First, the face of
the motion itself must be entitled an “Emergency
Motion” so the Court has prompt notice that expedited
relief is being requested. Local Rule 7-4(a). Second, the
emergency motion must be accompanied by an affidavit
providing several key facts necessary for the Court to
determine whether, in fact, an emergency exists and allowing
the Court to provide the fairest, most efficient resolution.
Id. This affidavit must include a detailed
description of the nature of the emergency. See Id.
The affidavit must also provide the contact information
(telephone number and office addresses) of the movant and all
other affected parties. See Id. As with any
discovery motion, the affidavit must also provide a
certification that, despite personal consultation and sincere
effort to do so, the movant was unable to resolve the matter
without court action. See id.; see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). If the circumstances are such that
personal consultation is truly not possible, the movant must
provide a detailed explanation why that is the case so the
Court can evaluate whether to exercise its discretion to
decide the motion despite the lack of a proper pre-filing
conference. Similarly, if no notice whatsoever was provided
to the opposing party regarding the filing of the motion, the
affidavit must include a detailed explanation of why it was
not practicable to provide that notice. See Local
these technical requirements are met, the Court will turn to
the substantive requirements for filing an emergency motion.
When a party files a motion on an emergency basis, it is
within the sole discretion of the Court to determine whether
any such matter is, in fact, an emergency. Local Rule 7-4(d).
Generally speaking, an emergency motion is properly presented
to the Court only when the movant has shown (1) that it will
be irreparably prejudiced if the Court resolves the motion
pursuant to the normal briefing schedule and (2) that the
movant is without fault in creating the crisis that requires
emergency relief or, at the very least, that the crisis
occurred because of excusable neglect. Cardoza, 141
F.Supp. 2d. at 1142 (citing Mission Power, 883
F.Supp. at 492). If there is no irreparable prejudice,
sufficient justification for bypassing the default briefing
schedule does not exist and the motion may be properly
decided on a non-expedited basis. Cardoza, 141
F.Supp.2d at 1142.
case, the Court does not find emergency relief appropriate,
as the Court finds that Defendant Pigeat will not be
irreparably prejudiced if the Court vacates the scheduled
deposition and resolves the motion pursuant to a slightly
expedited briefing schedule. See Docket No. 223.
the Court VACATES the deposition of Defendant Pigeat pending
resolution of her motion. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff
to respond to Defendant's motion for protective order no
later than February 13, 2017. Any reply shall be filed no
later than February 15, 2017. The Court INSTRUCTS the
Clerk's Office to serve this order on Defendant Pigeat by
e-mail at email@example.com.
 The purportedly emergency nature of a
discovery dispute does not obviate the requirement to conduct
a proper meet-and-confer. See, e.g.,
Cardoza, 2015 WL 6123192, at *3 (citing Goben v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26773, *3-4
(D. Nev. Feb. 27, 2013)). “To the contrary, a good
faith and thorough attempt to resolve the dispute without