Opinion
Case No. 2:15-cv-01268-RFB-NJK
08-17-2016
ORDER (Docket No. 78)
Pending before the Court is Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC's motion to stay the deposition of Christopher Hardin that was mandated by the undersigned's order of July 28, 2016. See Docket No. 78; see also Docket No. 72 (order compelling deposition). This request is not meaningfully developed, nor is it supported by any legal authority. As such, the Court declines to rule on the motion in its current form. See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013). Instead, SFR may renew its motion by August 18, 2016, but any renewed motion must discuss the applicable legal standards and explain why they are met. Any response shall be filed no later than August 22, 2016. Unless the Court grants that motion prior to the currently scheduled deposition date, the deposition shall proceed as scheduled. See, e.g., De Leon v. CIT Group, Inc., 2013 WL 950527, *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 11, 2013) ("The filing of objections to a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive matter does not stay the order's operation"); Tinsley v. Kemp, 750 F. Supp. 1001, 1013 (W.D. Mo. 1990) (the mere pendency of a motion to stay does not stay a party's obligations).
United States Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman has articulated in some detail the standards applicable to requests to stay a magistrate judge's order pending resolution of objections. See Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Am. Economy Ins. Co., 2013 WL 5954470, *1-4 (D. Nev. Nov. 6, 2013). --------
The motion to stay at Docket No. 78 is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 17, 2016
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge