Opinion
2:21-cv-02049-JCM-NJK
11-09-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTOPHER TUCKER, Defendants.
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 30]
Nancy J. Koppe, United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is the Government's motion to compel discovery. Docket No. 30. Defendant filed a response. Docket No. 31. The Government filed a reply. Docket No. 32. Defendant's response includes no legal authority of any kind, see Docket No. 31, which constitutes consent to the granting of the motion, Local Rule 7-2(d) (failure to file “points and authorities” to oppose a motion constitutes consent to the granting of the motion). Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant must provide responsive documents by November 23, 2022.
The Court declines to address the Government's request for costs, which it raises in the motion in a single sentence. See Docket No. 30 at 10; see also Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013) (courts only address arguments that are meaningfully developed). The Court declines to address Defendant's request to add a witness, which he improperly includes within his responsive brief to the motion to compel. See Docket No. 31 at 45; see also Local Rule IC 2-2(b) (separate documents must be filed for different purposes); Underwood v. O'Reilly Auto Enterps., LLC, 2022 WL 1184883, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 20, 2022) (discussing Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 132101, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2018)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.