Troiano v. Walmart, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 PAMELA TROIANO, Case No. 2:22-cv-00260-JCM-NJK 6 Plaintiff(s), ORDER Vv. [Docket Nos. 45, 46] WALMART, INC., et al., 9 Defendant(s). 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs motion to strike Defendants’ answer. Docket No. 11] 45. The outer date to file a motion for dispositive discovery sanctions is the deadline for dispositive 12} motions. E.g., Garcia v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 2019 WL 8750275, at *1 (D. Nev. May 23, 13] 2019) (citing Hall v. Schumacher, 2011 WL 4458845, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2011)).! In this 14] case, the dispositive motion deadline expired 16 months ago. See Docket No. 21 at 2 (setting 15] dispositive motion deadline for June 29, 2023). The pending motion offers no explanation as to 16] how it could be considered timely in light of the above, so it is DENIED without prejudice. 17 Because the Court is not resolving herein the merits of this motion, the Court will also 18] conditionally GRANT the accompanying motion to seal. Docket No. 46. The Clerk’s Office is 19] 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. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: October 16, 2024 UZ Nancy J. Koppe 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 ' 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). 28