Flynn v. State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA DAWNYELL TENAYA FLYNN, 7 Case No. 2:22-cv-01753-JAD-NJK Plaintiff, 8 Order v. 9 [Docket No. 104] STATE OF NEVADA EX REL. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Defendant Donald Burse. Docket No. 104. Defendant filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 114. Plaintiff filed a reply. Docket No. 117.

15 Plaintiff’s motion cites solely to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) for Defendant’s failure to appear to his properly noticed deposition on June 11, 2025, and Defendant’s walk-out of his rescheduled deposition on June 12, 2025. Docket No. 104. Defendant’s response brief contends that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) does not apply when a party appears for a deposition but refuses to answer questions. See Docket Nos. 114 at 2; see also Estrada v. Rowland, 69 F.3d 405, 406 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that attending a deposition but refusing to testify is not a “failure to appear” for the purposes of Rule 37(d)). Plaintiff’s reply brief agrees with Defendant’s argument regarding Rule 37(d)’s inapplicability where a party appears at a deposition but refuses to testify, and submits that Defendant’s conduct on June 12, 2025, is nonetheless sanctionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2). 1 Docket No. 117 at 3.

28 1 The Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of any argument.

1 Given that Defendant has not had the opportunity to respond to Plaintiff's argument 2|| pursuant to Rule 30(d), the Court GRANTS Defendant leave to file a surreply by September 19, 3] 2025. The surreply may only address the Rule 30(d) argument and nothing else.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: September 5, 2025 Up 6 fo ~~, Nancy J. Koppe 7 United States-Magistrate Judge 1]