1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 JOAN HELENE RAMOS, Case No. 2:24-cv-02269-RFB-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket No. 28] 10 TREVOR WILLIAM RATCHFORD, 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s barebones motion to strike a defense expert’s 13 opinion and for other related sanctions. Docket No. 28. 14 “The art of advocacy is not one of mystery. Our adversarial system relies on the advocates 15 to inform the discussion and raise the issues to the court.” Independent Towers of Wash. v. Wash., 16

, 929 (9th Cir. 2003). Counsel should be particularly mindful to submit well- 17 developed and well-supported argument when they are seeking significant relief from the Court. 18 See, e.g., Taddeo v. Am. Invsco Corp.,

, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2015). 19 The pending motion seeks “sanctions, at a minimum, that Dr. Lee’s expert report be 20 stricken, that Dr. Lee be excluded from testifying at trial, and that Defendant is precluded from 21 contesting Joan’s injuries and medical treatment at trial.” Docket No. 28 at 7. The sole legal 22 authority identified in support of this significant relief is a block quotation to a state court rule 23 about sanctions for disobeying a judicial order. See id. at 3. As the top of this page should 24 highlight, this case is not proceeding in state court, and no explanation is provided as to how a 25 state court rule would apply here. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1) (“These rules apply to a civil action 26 after it is removed from a state court”). Even were that not the case, a single block quotation to a 27 rule does not satisfy the bare requirement of providing points and authorities in compliance with 28 Local Rule 7-2(a). Cf. Rosetto v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.,

, at *2 (D. Nev. May 1} 15, 2013). Making matters worse, the motion identifies no legal authority and provides no meaningfully developed argument as to how the cited rule could suffice for the sanctions sought as there was admittedly no order that was violated. See Docket No. 28 at 3 (arguing without citation that an order is not required).! At bottom, the instant motion does not provide legal 5] analysis or argument, but is instead the written equivalent of counsel pounding their fists on the 6] table. Such an approach is contrary to the rules and case law that govern motion practice in this courthouse. 8 Accordingly, the pending motion is DENIED without prejudice. Counsel must familiarize themselves with federal court practice and ensure that they file motion practice moving forward 10] supported by meaningfully developed argument and by citation to applicable legal authority. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: August 11, 2025 13 AE \ a Nancy J. Koppe 14 United States. Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27), ——__________ ' The motion similarly declares that the defense expert engaged in “blatant violations of 28] discovery rules,” Docket No. 28 at 7, without ever identifying any such rules.