Internet Sports International, LTD. v. Amelco USA, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 ibe SPORTS INTERNATIONAL: Case No. 2:23-cv-00893-ART-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), Order V. [Docket Nos. 179, 181, 185, 187] 8 AMELCO USA, LLC, et al., 9 Defendant(s). 10 The parties are currently engaged in an extraordinary exercise of briefing an astounding 11] number of discovery motions after the discovery cutoff. Rather than simply opposing pending motions to compel, AMELCO has also filed countermotions for protective order. Docket Nos. 13] 179, 181, 185, 187. Upon denying a motion to compel, the Court is empowered to issue a protective order without the need for a separate motion for protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15] 37(a)(5)(B) (“If the motion [to compel] is denied, the court may issue any protective order 16] authorized under Rule 26(c)”). Hence, there appears to be no need for a separate countermotion 17] for protective order that is effectively duplicative of the opposition to a motion to compel. Moreover, the Court is not inclined to further muddy the docket with even more briefing on 19] countermotions given the extraordinary decision by the parties to move forward with so many discovery motions so late in the litigation process. Cf Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F. 3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The district court has considerable latitude in managing the parties’ motion 22\| practice”). Accordingly, the countermotions for protective order are DENIED subject to the 23] Court’s existing discretion to enter a protective order if a motion to compel is denied. The motions 24] to compel will be briefed in the ordinary course. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: July 30, 2024 27 7. A S a Nancy J..Ko 28 United Statés Magistrate Judge