Case 2:18-cv-00763-RFB-NJK Document 40 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 WILLIAM PEGG,
Case No. 2:18-cv-000763-RFB-NJK
6 Plaintiff,
vs. ORDER
7
CONOR McGREGOR, et al., (Docket No. 36)
8
Defendants.
9

10 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for protective order. Docket No. 36.

11 Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 37, 38. The

12 Court finds the motion properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. The motion is

13 hereby DENIED without prejudice.

14 A party moving for relief bears a basic burden of presenting clearly articulated argument

15 supported by legal and factual citation as to the disputes at issue. See, e.g., Silvagni v. Wal-Mart

16 Stores, Inc., 320 F.R.D. 237, 244 (D. Nev. 2017). Courts need only resolve arguments that are

17 meaningfully developed. See, e.g., Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D.

18 Nev. 2013). In the context of a discovery dispute in particular, it is plainly insufficient for a movant

19 to simply identify the discovery responses in dispute without elaborating specifically for each

20 request why the request should not be permitted. See, e.g., Anoruo v. Valley Health Sys., LLC,

21 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31101, at *2 n.1 (D. Nev. Feb. 27, 2018). Failure to provide such argument

22 in the motion is not cured by its inclusion in later briefing. See, e.g., Bazuaye v. I.N.S., 78 F.3d

23 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (courts do not consider arguments raised for the first time in
 Case 2:18-cv-00763-RFB-NJK Document 40 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 2

1 reply). In this case, Defendants fail to comply with this requirement, despite challenging thirty-

2 one of the topics set forth in Plaintiff’s deposition notice.

3 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for protective order is DENIED without prejudice.

4 Docket No. 36. To the extent a renewed motion is filed, it must present in a structured manner

5 specific argument for each disputed topic, identifying the particular reasons why Defendants

6 contend each topic is improper. As the parties should be well aware of each other’s positions at

7 this point, see, e.g., Nevada Power v. Monsanto, 151 F.R.D. 118, 120 (D. Nev. 1993) (a proper

8 meet-and-confer requires counsel to “present to each other the merits of their respective positions

9 with the same candor, specificity, and support during the informal negotiations as during the

10 briefing of discovery motions”), any renewed motion to compel shall be briefed on an expedited

11 schedule: the response shall be filed within 4 days of the electronic filing of the motion and any

12 reply shall be filed within 2 days of the electronic filing of the response. 1 The Court reminds the

13 parties that the CM/ECF system may automatically generate deadlines that are inconsistent with

14 this order and, in such instances, this order controls. See Local Rule IC 3-1(d).

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 DATED: October 22, 2018.

17

18
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19

20

21

22

23 1
To the extent a deadline set herein falls on a weekend or Court holiday, the filing is due on the
next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Court holiday. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).