Yuga Labs Inc v. Ripps
2:23-cv-00010
| D. Nev. | May 31, 2023Background
- Yuga Labs filed a motion (Docket No. 33) asking the court to find non-party Ryan Hickman in contempt and to compel further discovery or a sworn declaration about his searches.
- The underlying case (Yuga Labs v. Ripps, C.D. Cal.) had a discovery cutoff of April 3, 2023, and the scheduling order required any motion challenging discovery adequacy to be heard with time to permit compliance before that cutoff.
- The court had previously ordered Hickman to produce documents and detail his search by March 14, 2023; the contempt motion was filed after that compliance date and after the April 3 discovery cutoff.
- Hickman opposed the contempt motion; Yuga’s motion was filed without invoking the district’s emergency-motion procedures and after the discovery deadline.
- Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe denied the motion as untimely, noting the trial was imminent (June 27, 2023) and that the magistrate cannot typically hold contempt without certifying facts to a district judge, making timely relief impracticable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion to compel/for contempt | Hickman withheld responsive documents and should be ordered to produce remaining documents or give a sworn declaration | Motion was filed after the discovery cutoff (April 3, 2023) and was not filed as an emergency; untimely under the scheduling order | Denied as untimely — motion filed after discovery cutoff and therefore subject to denial |
| Availability/feasibility of contempt relief from magistrate | Contempt citation could compel further discovery from Hickman | Magistrate generally lacks power to hold contempt; contempt would require certification to district judge and a show-cause hearing, unlikely to complete before trial | Court noted the practical and procedural barriers to securing contempt relief in time and thus denied the motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, 332 F.R.D. 351 (D. Nev. 2019) (encouraging district court oversight to avoid protracted discovery)
- Rosetto v. Pabst Brewing Co., 217 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2000) (recognizing "protracted discovery" as a problem and supporting active case management)
- V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 332 F.R.D. 356 (D. Nev. 2019) (nonparty discovery and related motions are subject to the same deadlines as party discovery)
- KST Data, Inc. v. DXC Tech. Co., 344 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (untimeliness of discovery motions warrants denial regardless of their merits)