United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (DOCKET NO. 97)
J. KOPPE, United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for status
conference. Docket No. 97. Plaintiff filed its motion for
status conference on November 2, 2017. Id. Plaintiff
requests the Court to hold a status conference to discuss
Defendant American Combustion Technologies of California,
Inc.'s (“ACTI”) failure to confirm a noticed
deposition set to take place on November 7, 2017.
Id. at 2. Plaintiff also requests the status
conference to discuss ACTI's “threatened bankruptcy
and fraudulent conveyances to its new company....”
Id. The Court construes Plaintiff's motion for
status conference as an attempt to file an emergency motion.
However, Plaintiff failed to follow the appropriate technical
and substantive requirements for an emergency motion.
motions must as a threshold matter meet several technical
requirements outlined in the local rules. See, e.g.,
Local Rule 26-7(d) (emergency discovery motions must satisfy
the requirements outlined in Local Rule 7-4). 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. 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,
e.g., Local Rule 7-4(a)(3). 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. See id. 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 Id. Concurrently with
the filing of an emergency motion, or promptly thereafter,
the movant must inform the courtroom administrators of the
assigned judges that the motion was filed. Local Rule 7-4(d).
these technical requirements are not met, the emergency
motion may be denied. Local Rule 7-4(b). If 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. See Local Rule 7-4(c).
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 v.
Bloomin' Brands, 141 F.Supp.3d 1137, at 1142 (D.
Nev. 2015) (citing Mission Power Eng'g Co. v.
Continental Cas. Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, at 492 (C.D. Cal.
1995)). 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.3d at
1142-43. If there is irreparable prejudice but the movant
created the crisis, the Court may simply deny the relief
sought. Id. at 1143. The relevant inquiry is not
whether the opposing party was at fault with respect to the
underlying dispute, but rather “it is the creation of
the crisis-the necessity for bypassing regular motion
procedures-that requires explanation.” Mission
Power, 883 F.Supp. at 493. For example, when an attorney
knows of the existence of a dispute and unreasonably delays
in bringing that dispute to the Court's attention until
the eleventh hour, the attorney has created the emergency
situation and the request for relief may be denied outright.
See Cardoza, 141 F.Supp.3d at 1143 (collecting
cases). Quite simply, emergency motions “are not
intended to save the day for parties who have failed to
present requests when they should have.”
Intermagnetics America, 101 B.R. 191, at 193 (CD.
Cal. 1989); see also Local Rule 7-4(b) (“[The]
failure to effectively manage deadlines, discovery, trial, or
any other aspect of litigation does not constitute an
instance, Plaintiff has failed to comply with any of the
requirements for filing an emergency motion. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for status
 The motion also suffers from numerous
substantive deficiencies, which the Court does not ...