Opinion
2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK
04-08-2022
PLAYUP, INC., Plaintiffs, v. DR. LAILA MINTAS, Defendants.
ORDER
[DOCKET NOS. 100, 101, 102]
Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to quash, motion for protective order, and motion to shorten time related to a subpoena to Bally's Corporation. Docket Nos. 100, 101, 102. Although it appears that both sides recognize that the instant motion practice may overlap with the issues already before the Court in other motion practice regarding a subpoena to Sportradar US, they have not been able to agree yet on whether to avoid this new motion practice. See, e.g., Docket No. 102 at 5-7. The Court reminds counsel that they are supposed to be engaging in discovery with an eye towards cooperation and common sense. See Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141 F.Supp.3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015); see also Docket No. 51 at 3. Defendant's motion to quash, motion for protective order, and motion to shorten time (Docket Nos. 100, 101, 102) are all DENIED without prejudice. Counsel must continue conferring. No. later than noon on April 11, 2022, counsel must either (1) file a stipulation that the Bally's subpoena will be held in abeyance until the Court rules on the previously-filed motion practice with respect to the Sportradar U.S. subpoena, or (2) renew the motion practice on the Bally's subpoena.
IT IS SO ORDERED.