United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 30]
J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel
discovery from Plaintiff, which was filed on an emergency
basis. Docket No. 30.
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, 193-194 (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. 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., Local Rule 7-4(b)
(“Emergency motions should be rare”).
addition to various technical requirements, see
Local Rule 7-4(a), parties seeking emergency relief must
satisfy several substantive requirements. 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(c); see
also Local Rule 26-7(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.3d 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.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 “[i]t 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. at 193; 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
instant motion arises out of supplemental disclosures and a
privilege log served on June 4, 2019. See Docket No.
30 at 2, 12. The meet-and-confer was conducted nearly four
months later. See id. at 2. The fact that Defendant
delayed bringing this motion until the eve of the discovery
cutoff does not justify emergency treatment whereby the
motion is moved to the front of the line ahead of the many
other matters pending before the undersigned. Cf. Mazzeo
v. Gibbons, 2010 WL 3020021, at *1 (D. Nev. July 27,
2010) (Leen, J.) (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
the Court declines to give the motion emergency
consideration. Instead, the motion will be briefed pursuant
to the schedule previously provided, see Docket No.
13, and will be decided in the ordinary course.
 The Court expresses no opinion herein
as to the merits of the ...