Tomahawk Manufacturing, Inc. v. Spherical Industries, Inc., 2:23-cv-01007

The case involves claims of alleged trade secret misappropriation between Tomahawk Manufacturing, Inc. (plaintiff) and Spherical Industries, Inc. (defendant).
A protective order was entered governing the confidentiality of certain discovery materials, with provisions allowing for modification through proper motion.
Defendants, through Attorney Stephen Healey, filed four separate emergency motions to modify the protective order, all of which were denied for procedural deficiencies, including failure to comply with discovery rules and improper use of the emergency motion process.
The most recent (fourth) emergency motion was filed only 45 hours before a hearing in California, with the justification based on the imminence of that hearing—although the hearing date had been set for weeks.
The court found that the defendants’ repeated delays and improper filings created the supposed emergency, and refused to address the motion on an expedited basis, instead deciding it would proceed in the ordinary course.
The court ordered Attorney Healey to read specified case law on emergency motion practice and file a declaration of compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether motion to modify the protective order merits emergency consideration	Motion does not meet emergency standards; defendants have repeatedly failed to follow procedure	Emergency relief necessary due to impending hearing in another district	Motion not considered on emergency basis; defendants created their own emergency
Adequacy of compliance with procedural rules for emergency motions	Defendants have not followed proper procedures or rules for emergency motions	Emergency filings justified by upcoming deadlines in another case	Defendants failed to satisfy local rules and standards for emergency relief
Justification for delay in filing the motion	Defendants' lack of timely action led to the crisis	Delay due to developments in related proceedings and need for urgent relief	Court attributes delay and crisis to defendants’ own lack of diligence
Sanction or remedial measure for attorney's continued procedural failures	Attorney should be required to correct deficiencies and follow rules	Attorney acting in good faith to address pressing issues	Attorney ordered to read case law and attest to having done so

Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137 (D. Nev. 2015) (discusses strict standards and disfavored status of emergency motions in federal court)
Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (outlines requirements for emergency/ex parte motions and the need to avoid self-created emergencies)
In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191 (C.D. Cal. 1989) (emergency motions should not cure counsel’s own lack of diligence or management)