From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quimby v. Stevens

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Nov 2, 2021
2:19-cv-02181-JCM-NJK (D. Nev. Nov. 2, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-02181-JCM-NJK

11-02-2021

RUTH QUIMBY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL STEVENS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

[Docket Nos. 44, 45]

NANCY J. KOPPE UNITED STATES-MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court are Defendants' motions to set witness fees for the depositions of Dr. Thomas Vater and Dr. Firooz Mashhood. Docket Nos. 44, 45. No response was filed. See Docket. Accordingly, the motions are properly granted as unopposed. See Local Rule 7-2(d).

Although Defendants submit that the hourly rates of the witnesses are unreasonable, they fail to submit points and authorities to support their request for reasonable rates. See Docket Nos. 44, 45. The Court declines to determine specific rates without such information. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 297 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (Courts only consider well developed arguments).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motions. Docket Nos. 44, 45. Defendants must file a motion for the Court to calculate reasonable expert witness fees, addressing the appropriate factors and case law, no later than November 16, 2021. Plaintiff's response and any reply will be briefed according to the Court's default briefing schedule.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 1


Summaries of

Quimby v. Stevens

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Nov 2, 2021
2:19-cv-02181-JCM-NJK (D. Nev. Nov. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Quimby v. Stevens

Case Details

Full title:RUTH QUIMBY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL STEVENS, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Nov 2, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-02181-JCM-NJK (D. Nev. Nov. 2, 2021)