Alvarado-Herrera v. Acuity A Mutual Insurance Company

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA ESTEVAN ALVARADO-HERRERA, 6 Case No. 2:22-cv-00438-CDS-NJK Plaintiff(s), 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 70] ACUITY A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 10 Defendant(s).

11 On November 8, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide supplemental interrogatory responses by November 22, 2022. Docket No. 61. On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion 13] to stay operation of that deadline pending resolution of his objection to the undersigned’s order.

14] Docket No. 70. That motion to stay does not acknowledge the fact that it was filed more than three months after the expiration of the deadline at issue. See in re Lernout & Hauspie Securities Litig., 16] 219 F.R.D. 28, 30 (D. Mass. 2003) (denying as untimely motion to stay discovery order pending 17] resolution of objection to district judge; “it is improper (and, indeed, probably contumacious) to 18] fail to comply with [a discovery] Order and not to seek a stay at a time reasonably in advance of 19] the time for compliance”); Greystone Const., Inc. v. Nat’l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2008 WL 20|| 795815, at *4 (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2008) (same); see also PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas, __ F. Supp. 3d 21 , 2022 WL 10967692, at *3 n.2 (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2022) (“The motion to stay must be filed 22|| sufficiently in advance of the date ordered for compliance to provide the court an opportunity to 23] rule on the motion prior to that deadline”). Having not addressed this threshold issue, the motion 24|| to stay is DENIED without prejudice.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: February 28, 2023 27 A Nancy Js e 28 United States Magistrate Judge