1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 YUGA LABS INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00010-APG-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), Order 7 v. [Docket No. 33] 8 RYDER RIPPS, et al., 9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a contempt finding, which seeks an order 11 requiring further discovery efforts by non-party Ryan Hickman. Docket No. 33. Hickman filed a 12 response in opposition. Docket No. 34. Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 35. The motion is 13 properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the 14 motion is DENIED. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiff’s motion was filed on April 7, 2023, seeking an order requiring further efforts 17 from Hickman to provide discovery for Plaintiff’s use in the underlying case pending in the Central 18 District of California. See, e.g., Docket No. 33 at 8-9 (seeking an order requiring “Mr. Hickman 19 to produce any remaining responsive documents that he continues to withhold or provide a sworn 20 declaration attesting to his search and explaining why such production is not possible”).1 Of 21 significance, the discovery period in the underlying case expired on April 3, 2023. Yuga Labs, 22 Inc. v. Ripps, No. 2:22-cv-04355-JFW-JEM, Docket No. 57 at 35 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2022). The 23 scheduling order in the underlying case makes clear that the discovery cutoff “IS NOT THE 24 DATE BY WHICH DISCOVERY REQUESTS MUST BE SERVED; IT IS THE DATE BY 25

26 1 The order at issue required Hickman to produce documents and provide a detailed recitation of his search efforts by March 14, 2023. Docket No. 29 at 3. The pending motion was 27 filed nearly a month after that compliance deadline. On April 3, 2023, the Court indicated that it would administratively close this case unless further relief was sought by April 10, 2023. Docket 28 No. 32. The Court did not opine therein on whether any further request would be timely. 1 WHICH ALL DISCOVERY, INCLDUING EXPERT DISCOVERY, MUST BE 2 COMPLETED.” Id. at 5 (emphasis in original). The scheduling order further indicates that 3 “[a]ny motion challenging the adequacy of responses to discovery must be heard sufficiently in 4 advance of the discovery cut-off to permit the responses to be obtained before that date if the 5 motion is granted.” Id. Trial is set in the underlying case for June 27, 2023. Id. at 35. 6 II. STANDARDS 7 “District court oversight is encouraged to avoid ‘protracted discovery, the bane of modern 8 litigation.’” Garcia v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union,

, 354 (D. Nev. 2019) (quoting 9 Rosetto v. Pabst Brewing Co.,

(7th Cir. 2000)). Nonparty discovery and related 10 motion practice are subject to the same deadlines as party discovery. See, e.g., V5 Techs. v. Switch, 11 Ltd.,

, 361-62 & n.5 (D. Nev. 2019). The untimeliness of a discovery motion 12 warrants its denial regardless of the merits of the arguments raised. KST Data, Inc. v. DXC Tech. 13 Co.,

, 1136 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 2018). Courts may raise the untimeliness of a 14 discovery motion sua sponte. Garcia, 332 F.R.D. at 354 n.2. 15 III. ANALYSIS 16 As noted above, the instant motion is centered on Plaintiff’s contention that Hickman’s 17 prior discovery efforts have been inadequate and the motion seeks an order for further discovery 18 efforts. Plaintiff’s counsel’s conferral discussions recognize that “April 3 is the last day of fact 19 discovery in our case,” Docket No. 33-1 at 19, and the scheduling order is crystal clear that it is 20 untimely to file a motion thereafter challenging the adequacy of discovery responses, Yuga Labs, 21 Inc. v. Ripps, No. 2:22-cv-04355-JFW-JEM, Docket No. 57 at 5. Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s motion 22 was filed after the discovery cutoff.2 Moreover, trial is now imminent and appears unlikely to be 23

24 2 Although there are references within the papers as to the imminence of trial, see Docket No. 33 at 8 (referencing the “imminent trial”), the motion did not seek emergency review or 25 comply with the requirements for doing so, see Local Rule 26-6(d); see also Local Rule 7-4 (requiring those seeking emergency relief to, inter alia, entitle their motion an “Emergency 26 Motion” and advise the courtroom deputy of the filing of the motion so the Court has notice of the need for prompt resolution). The Court generally resolves non-emergency motions in the order 27 they were filed, see, e.g., Mazzeo v. Gibbons,

, at *1 (D. Nev. July 27, 2010) (addressing non-emergency motion after it has “worked its way up the tall stack of other matters 28 on my desk”), so the motion is being resolved in the ordinary course at this time. 1} continued. See, e.g., Docket No. 33-1 at 40 (denying motion to stay given the then-imminent close 2|| of discovery and upcoming trial date).? Hence, the motion is untimely pursuant to the scheduling 3] order and is subject to denial on that basis. 41IV. CONCLUSION 5 Accordingly, the Court DENIES as untimely Plaintiff's motion for a contempt finding, which seeks an order requiring further discovery efforts by non-party Hickman. The Clerk’s 7|| Office is INSTRUCTED to close this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May 31, 2023 10 EX a Nancy Js. e 1] United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > Magistrate judges are generally not empowered to hold parties in contempt, so a contempt proceeding here would require a certification of facts to the district judge to hold a show cause 27| hearing. See, e.g.,

(e)(6)(B)(iii); see also Taddeo vy. Am. Invsco Corp.,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2015). It is not clear how that process (with the envisioned goal of obtaining further discovery from Hickman) could be completed before the upcoming trial date.