Opinion
2:22-cv-00260-JCM-NJK
10-16-2024
PAMELA TROIANO, Plaintiffs, v. WALMART, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
[DOCKET NOS. 45, 46]
Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants' answer. Docket No. 45. The outer date to file a motion for dispositive discovery sanctions is the deadline for dispositive motions. E.g., Garcia v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, 2019 WL 8750275, at *1 (D. Nev. May 23, 2019) (citing Hall v. Schumacher, 2011 WL 4458845, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2011)). In this case, the dispositive motion deadline expired 16 months ago. See Docket No. 21 at 2 (setting dispositive motion deadline for June 29, 2023). The pending motion offers no explanation as to how it could be considered timely in light of the above, so it is DENIED without prejudice.
Because doing so involves the enforcement of its own scheduling order, the Court may raise timeliness sua sponte. See, e.g., Bonavito v. Nev. Prop. 1 LLC, 2014 WL 5364077, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2014).
Because the Court is not resolving herein the merits of this motion, the Court will also conditionally GRANT the accompanying motion to seal. Docket No. 46. The Clerk's Office is INSTRUCTED to continue maintaining that motion and its exhibits under seal. In the event the underlying motion is renewed, however, a sufficient showing must be made for sealing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.