1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7) PATRICIA A. RAMSEY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02207-KJD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9] [Docket No. 25] 10] P.F. CHANG’S CHINA BISTRO, INC., ll Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for spoliation sanctions. Docket No. 25. Defendant filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 27. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the 14] deadline for doing so has expired. Local Rule 7-2(d). 15 Defendant’s responsive brief argues that the motion fails to account for the requirement in 16] Rule 37(e) that Plaintiff must establish an “intent to deprive” and, relatedly, that the motion does not provide sufficient evidence from which an intent to deprive can be found. Docket No. 27 at 18] 4-7. Defendant’s responsive brief also argues that the motion was not timely filed. Jd. at 4. 19 “The district court has considerable latitude in managing the parties’ motion practice.” 20|| Christian v. Mattel, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2002). As Defendant’s responsive brief 21] raises threshold issues that warrant input from Plaintiff, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to file a reply by September 24, 2021. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: September 20, 2021 25 AES ZX Nancy J. Koppe 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28