James Fahey v. Wally’s Las Vegas, LLC, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA James Fahey, Case No. 2:25-cv-01044-APG-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order v. [Docket No. 84] Wally’s Las Vegas, LLC, et al., 10 Defendant.

11 Pending before the Court is Defendant Resorts World Las Vegas, LLC’s motion to compel.

12 Docket No. 84. Plaintiff filed an exhibit in response.1 Docket No. 89. Plaintiff also filed an untimely response in opposition to the motion. Docket No. 98. Defendant Resorts World filed a reply. Docket No. 104.

15 “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998). When a party fails to provide discovery and the parties’ attempts to resolve the dispute without Court intervention are unsuccessful, the opposing party may seek an order compelling that discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party seeking to avoid discovery bears the burden of showing why it should not be permitted. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975).

21 Arguments against discovery must be supported by “specific examples and articulated reasoning.”

22 U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Ent., 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 2006).

23 Local Rule 7-2(b) provides that “the deadline to file and serve any points and authorities in response to [a] motion is 14 days after service of the motion.” Further, “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. The Court liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 28 89, 94 (2007).

1} R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”

Local Rule 7-2(d).

3 The instant motion was filed on October 21, 2025. Docket No. 84. Through the instant 4] motion, Defendant Resorts World seeks to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to its First Set of 5| Interrogatories. See id.; see also Docket No. 84-2. Plaintiff filed an exhibit responding to the 6|| motion, which consists solely of an email Plaintiff sent to Defendants’ counsel. Docket No. 89.

7| The email provided does not respond to Defendant’s motion, but instead discusses Plaintiff's 8|| discovery requests of Defendants. See id. Further, Plaintiff filed a response brief on November 9} 12, 2025, which is untimely under Local Rule 7-2(b). See Docket No. 98. Even if the Court were 10] to consider the response, Plaintiff fails to address Defendant’s motion with any meaningful 11] argument. See U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Ent., 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 2006). Plaintiff 12] asserts that the motion is moot because the parties resolved various discovery disputes during a 13] meet-and-confer; however, the issues identified by Plaintiff are not responsive to the instant 14] motion. See Docket No. 98 at 2. Plaintiff also fails to provide points and authorities to show why 15] the discovery requested should not be permitted. See Local Rule 7-2(d).

16 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel. Docket No. 84. Plaintiff 17| is ORDERED to provide responses to Defendant Resorts World’s Las Vegas, LLC’s First Set of 18] Interrogatories by December 19, 2025.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: December 10, 2025. he.

Nancy J. Koppe * 22 United Stat es Magistrate Judge