United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 152]
J KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel filed on
an emergency basis on December 4, 2019. Docket No. 152.
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 is 19-pages long with over 300 pages of
exhibits. The motion seeks an order requiring the production
of documents by Monday, December 9, 2019, which is three
business days after the motion was filed. The dispute at
issue has been percolating for months, since at least
mid-September. See, e.g., Mot. at 8-9 (identifying
initial conferral efforts). The pressing need identified with
respect to this discovery is the upcoming reply expert
deadline of December 26, 2019. See Id. at 13;
see also Docket No. 152-1 at ¶ 2.
magistrate judge is “not the Maytag repairman of
federal judges desperately hoping for something to do.”
Mazzeo v. Gibbons, 2010 WL 3020021, *1 (D. Nev. July
27, 2010). The Court declines to drop all of the other
matters pending before it-of which there are many-to resolve
a discovery dispute being presented at the eleventh-hour.
See Id. Moreover, no showing is made as to
irreparable harm in resolving the motion at a later date.
Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(E) (contemplating
supplementation of expert reports).
the Court declines to consider the motion on an emergency
basis. In an effort to advance the ball somewhat, though, the
Court orders that any response must be filed by December 11,
2019, and any reply must be filed by December 13, 2019. The
motion will then be resolved in the ordinary course.
 Pin-citations to the motion are made
to the pagination provided by ...