Henderson v. Aria Resort and Casino Holdings, LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 RHODNEY HENDERSON, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00280-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. [Docket Nos. 98, 99] 9 ARIA RESORT & CASINO HOLDINGS, 10 LLC, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is a motion for clarification from the undersigned or, in the 13 alternative, an objection to the district judge. Docket No. 98. 14 As a threshold matter, it is not appropriate to seek concurrent relief from a magistrate judge 15 and from a district judge on the same issues, cf. Reno v. W. Cab Co., 2020 WL 2462900, at *2 (D. 16 Nev. May 1, 2020), and it violates the local rules to file one document for two purposes, Local 17 Rule IC 2-2(b). As such, the Court herein addresses only the motion for clarification. 18 The motion for clarification seeks a ruling as to whether Plaintiffs’ substituted expert 19 opinions must be substantially similar to the prior opinions given in written form, or whether they 20 must also be substantially similar to deposition testimony, Docket No. 98 at 4-6, and whether 21 Plaintiffs may engage two substitute experts rather than one, id. at 6-7. These issues are better 22 addressed after the substituted expert opinions have been obtained so the Court can resolve any 23 lingering dispute based on a more concrete record. Cf. Kaepplinger v. Michelotti, 2021 WL 24 2633312, at *7 (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2021) (collecting cases that disputes as to the appropriate scope 25 of the substituted expert opinion are best addressed by the filing of a motion to exclude after the 26 opinions have been obtained); United States ex rel. Agate Steel, Inc. v. Jaynes Corp., 2015 WL 27 1546717, at *2 n.5 (D. Nev. Apr. 6, 2015) (deferring ruling on potential for award of attorneys’ 28 fees until after substituted expert opinion provided).! The Court also reminds the parties that they should be engaging cooperatively as to the discovery process and, hopefully, can resolve any such 3] disputes without further judicial intervention. E.g., Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015). 5 Accordingly, the motion for clarification (Docket No. 98) is DENIED. If disputes arise 6| after the substitute expert opinions are obtained on the issues described in the motion for 7| clarification, Defendants may at that time initiate appropriate motion practice. In light of the ruling 8|| herein, the stipulation to extend the deadline to submit a new schedule (Docket No. 99) is DENIED 9] as moot. The parties must file a stipulation with a proposed schedule for expert disclosures and 10] depositions by June 2, 2023.” 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: May 30, 2023 Nancy J“Koppe 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' Deferring ruling on these disputes also enables the parties to provide more fulsome briefing. See, e.g., Docket No. 98 at 6-7 (providing 17-lines of text in total as to whether one or 27|| two experts may be substituted). 28 ? The Court does not resolve herein the motion to seal. Docket No. 97.