Bartech Systems International, Inc. v. Mobile Simple Solutions, Inc.
2:15-cv-02422
D. Nev.Feb 8, 2017Background
- Defendant Christelle Pigeat filed an emergency motion for a protective order concerning a deposition set for Feb 9, 2017 in Las Vegas, arguing she cannot afford to travel from Canada and sought a closer location.
- The motion was styled and docketed as an emergency motion (Docket No. 223) and requested expedited court intervention.
- The Court reviewed local rules governing emergency motions (Local Rule 7-4) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) meet-and-confer requirements.
- The Court emphasized technical prerequisites for emergency motions: motion label, affidavit with detailed emergency description and contact info, certification of good-faith meet-and-confer (or an explanation why conference was impossible).
- Substantively, the Court applied the emergency-motion standard: (1) irreparable prejudice absent expedited relief, and (2) movant’s lack of fault or excusable neglect in creating the crisis.
- The Court found no irreparable prejudice and declined emergency relief, vacated Pigeat’s deposition pending resolution on a shortened briefing schedule, and set response/reply deadlines (Plaintiff response by Feb 13; reply by Feb 15, 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether emergency relief was warranted to prevent immediate prejudice from a scheduled deposition | Plaintiff (Bartech) opposed emergency relief and would proceed with deposition in Las Vegas as noticed | Pigeat argued financial inability to travel to Las Vegas and requested a closer deposition location, seeking protective order on emergency basis | Court held emergency relief not warranted; vacated deposition and ordered expedited (but not emergency) briefing |
| Whether movant complied with Local Rule 7-4 technical requirements for emergency motions | Bartech contended normal procedures and local rules govern and emergency label/affidavit/meet-and-confer prerequisites must be satisfied | Pigeat’s motion failed to show requisite emergency particulars and meet-and-confer details (court stressed need for affidavit and certification) | Court emphasized technical requirements and found movant did not justify bypassing normal process; proceeded on shortened schedule instead |
| Whether irreparable prejudice existed to justify bypassing normal briefing | Bartech argued no irreparable harm and that normal scheduling sufficed | Pigeat asserted imminent prejudice due to inability to attend deposition in person | Court found no irreparable prejudice and thus no basis for emergency relief |
| Whether meet-and-confer requirement could be excused given the purported emergency | Bartech implied meet-and-confer should occur; absence undermines emergency claim | Pigeat did not sufficiently explain inability to confer personally or lack of notice to opposing counsel | Court reiterated that even in time-sensitive disputes, a good-faith meet-and-confer is critical and lack of it weighs against emergency relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (D. Nev.) (disfavoring emergency motions and outlining standards for emergency discovery relief)
- Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal.) (stating emergency relief requires lack of fault in creating the crisis or excusable neglect)
- In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. 191 (C.D. Cal.) (discussing problems created by emergency motions and need to follow established procedures)