In re Tahoe Resources, Inc.

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 Case No. 2:17-cv-01868-RFB-NJK IN RE: TAHOE RESOURCES, INC. Order 10 SECURITIES LITIGATION [Docket Nos. 195, 196, 198, 200, 201, 203, 1 204, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 215] 12 Pending before the Court are seven motions for issuance of letters rogatory, along with 13] seven sealed versions of the same. Docket Nos. 195, 196, 198, 200, 201, 203, 204, 206, 207, 209, 14] 210, 212, 213, 215. Lead Plaintiff represents that Defendants do not oppose the relief sought, but 15] also that Defendants dispute the relevance of the testimony and documents. See Docket No. 195 16] at 4; Docket No. 198 at 4; Docket No. 201 at 4; Docket No. 204 at 4; Docket No. 207 at 4; Docket No. 210 at 4; Docket No. 213 at 4. Hence, the Court has been told that there is a dispute as to relevance, but has not been provided any basis for such dispute.! Accordingly, Defendants must file a response to each of the motions for issuance of letter rogatory that either (1) explains the 20] basis for Defendants’ position that the testimony and documents are not relevant or (2) indicates 21| that Defendants do not dispute relevance. These responses must be filed by October 31, 2022.

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: October 24, 2022 24 f □ __ Nancy J. Koppe 25 United States M agistrate Judge 27), ——__________ ' Relevance is assessed even when a motion for issuance of letter rogatory is unopposed.

28] See, e.g., Dish Network LLC v. Jadoo TV, Inc., 2020 WL 6528425, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2020).