Sims v. (1), No. 2:24-cv-00831-CDS-EJY (Apr. 7, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Sims v. Souily-Lefave (1)
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Nevada (NV)
Court
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided
Apr. 7, 2026
Majority
Elayna J. Youchah (J.) (unanimous Court)
AURORE SIMS, Plaintiff, v. ASSIA SOUILY-LEFAVE; AROUND..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 948233Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, D. Nevada.AURORE SIMS, Plaintiff,v.ASSIA SOUILY-LEFAVE;AROUND VEGAS, LLC-1 DAYIN LAS VEGAS, Defendants.Case No. 2:24-cv-00831-CDS-EJY|Filed 04/07/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsAurore Sims, New York, NY, Pro Se.Alexander Shindler, Pro Hac Vice, Alexander Shindler, Esq.,P.C., Brooklyn, NY, David Liebrader, The Law Office ofDavid Liebrader, Las Vegas, NV, Ryan Gile, Gile Law GroupLtd., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants.ORDERELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATEJUDGE*1 The Court has before it the following Motions,Oppositions, and Replies:1. Plaintiff Motion to Compel Production of Documents (ECFNo. 162), the Opposition (ECF No. 163), and Reply (ECF No.164);12. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Sanctions (ECF No. 165),and the Opposition (ECF No. 175);23. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 173), theOpposition (ECF No. 178), and Reply (ECF NO. 181);4. Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 176), theOpposition (ECF No. 180), and Reply (ECF No. 184);5. Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No.177), the Opposition (ECF No. 182), and Reply (ECF No.185); and6. Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Discovery (ECF No. 183), theOpposition (ECF No. 186), and Reply (ECF No. 187).All of these filing have been considered by the Court.I. Factual BackgroundBefore the six pending motions were filed, Defendants fileda Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition (ECF No. 151)that Plaintiff opposed (ECF No. 154). The Court heard oralargument regarding this Motion on December 17, 2025.ECF No. 161. Defendants’ then-Motion to Compel recitedsignificant efforts to schedule Plaintiff's deposition. Theprocess began in September 2025, at which time Defendantsset a date in November 2025, thus giving Plaintiff two monthsto prepare. ECF No. 151 at 3. Beginning on November 7,2025, there were seven exchanges regarding an effort toreschedule Plaintiff's deposition. Id. Plaintiff claimed she wastoo busy to appear despite her substantial involvement inlitigation in this and other courts involving the same subjectmatter. Id. at 3-4. As of November 25, 2025, Plaintiff'sdeposition remained unscheduled. Id. at 4.After Plaintiff sought to reschedule a hearing set to hearDefendant's Motion to Compel, Plaintiff filed a 107 pageMotion (with exhibits) to Extend or Stay Discovery assertingshe had to have responses to all discovery she propoundedon Defendants before she would sit for her deposition. ECFNo. 155. Plaintiff further contended she had no availabilityduring the month of November, she was suffering a housingdisruption, health issues and a computer failure, and she wasacting in good faith. ECF No. 155 filed on December 8, 2025.On December 17, 2025, the parties appeared for the hearingon Defendants’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 151) andPlaintiff's Motion to Extend or Stay Discovery (ECF No.155). After discussing initial matters pertaining to Plaintiff'scomprehension of English and Defendants’ failure to complywith some local rules, the Court explained to Plaintiff thatshe had initiated this action in federal court and, by doingso, “initiated a process that allows the defense to engage indiscovery just as it allows ... [her] to engage in discovery,meaning” the parties may request documents from oneanother and take depositions. ECF No. 172 at 5. The Courtfurther explained that Plaintiff's “other commitments” are“understandable,” but do not establish reasons for delaying
AURORE SIMS, Plaintiff, v. ASSIA SOUILY-LEFAVE; AROUND..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2depositions “indefinitely or, candidly, at all.” Id. The Courtstated: “It is your case. If you want this case to go forward,you must appear for a deposition.” Id.*2 Thereafter, the Court confirmed with Plaintiff thatThursdays were the best day of the week for her to appearto be deposed, and provided three dates—two in January andone in February—from which she could pick to have herdeposition taken by videoconferencing. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiffchose the date in February, with the deposition start time of11 a.m., the exact location to be provided in the depositionnotice. Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff confirmed she understood theprocess and that failure to appear would be a violation of theCourt's Order. Id. at 8.The Court then moved on to discuss Plaintiff's concern thatshe did not have documents she needed before she appearedfor deposition. Id. at 9-10. Plaintiff claimed she neededresponses to more than 70 requests for production. Id. at10. Defendants explained they had produced “everything”related to copyright and that there were “no other documentsto produce.” Id. Defendants further explained Plaintiff sought“citizenship records of -- of the defendants, immigrationinformation, nothing to do with copyright.” Id.The Court ordered the deposition to proceed, citizenship andimmigration documents not relevant to the copyright claim onwhich Plaintiff was proceeding, and if there were documentsPlaintiff still wanted to compel she would have to file a motionidentifying those documents. Id. at 11. The Court extendedthe discovery period to March 31, 2026, and the dispositivemotion due date to April 30, 2026. Id. at 12-13. To ensureclarity, the Court again confirmed that Plaintiff understoodthat if she failed to appear for her depositions Defendantscould seek sanctions. Id. at 13-14.a. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents.On December 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Motion to CompelProduction of Documents. ECF No. 162. Plaintiff statedshe served two sets of document requests, but Defendantsproduced nothing in response. Plaintiff's Motion does notidentify for the Court those document requests to whichshe seeks to compel responses. Id. The first set of Requestsfor Documents contains 58 requests. ECF No. 162-2 at12-48. The second set of Requests for Document contains17 requests. Id. at 53-55. Without discussing specificrequests, the first category of documents sought (personaland immigration information) is not relevant to the copyrightissue before the Court. Id. at 12. The second and thirdcategories (financial records and payments; photos, shoots,and related materials) are (with some limited exceptions),on their face, grossly overbroad and disproportionate tothe needs of the case. Id. at 11-12. Moreover, Defendantsrespond that all responsive documents were produced toPlaintiff on October 14, 2025, with the remainder irrelevant ordisproportionate to the needs of the case. ECF No. 163 at 2-5.Plaintiff's Reply provides no more clarity regarding what sheseeks than was provided in her moving papers. ECF No. 164.b. Defendants’ Motion to Compel and for Sanctions andPlaintiff's Response—a Motion for Protective Order.Defendants filed their Motion to Compel and for Sanctionsafter Plaintiff appeared but refused to participate in thedeposition process. ECF Nos. 165, 165-4. Defendantscontend that despite the simplicity of this case allegingcopyright infringement over the use of a single photographtaken in May 2021, in what is presumed to be Defendant AssiaSouily-LeFave's apartment, Plaintiff commenced litigatingin October 2021 by filing complaints in various courtsthroughout the U.S. ECF No. 165 at 2. Defendants say thatregardless of the Court's Order requiring Plaintiff to appearfor deposition on February 5, 2026 (a date she selected), anda warning that failure to appear for deposition would resultin sanctions, Plaintiff appeared, read a long statement, andthen refused to answer any questions. ECF No. 165 at 4; seealso ECF No. 165-4. (the deposition transcript). Plaintiff'sstatements make clear she was objecting based on her beliefthat she was entitled to documents, and that she would notrespond to questions. Id. Plaintiff spoke in English duringher appearance and stated that she had a right to interpreter,who was present and paid for by Defendants; however, shestill would not proceed. Id. Defendants seeks sanctions underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), and (b)(2)(C).Specifically, Defendants request $4,075 in attorney's fees,$1,492.48 for the court reporting service, and $1,255 for theFrench interpreter.*3 Defendants also raise issues relating to Plaintiff's conductafter the deposition. ECF Nos. 165 at 7, 165-7, 165-8. Onedocument to which Defendants point is titled “Notice tothe Court Regarding Plaintiff's Deposition.” ECF No. 165-7at 3. The second document is Plaintiff's letter (ECF No.165-8), written in English as all of Plaintiff's submissionshave been, in which she misrepresents facts pertaining tothe December hearing and rails against her deposition eventhough Defendants arranged for and had a French interpreterpresent. ECF No. 165-4.
AURORE SIMS, Plaintiff, v. ASSIA SOUILY-LEFAVE; AROUND..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3Plaintiff responded to Defendant's Motion by filing a singledocument that served as an opposition to the Motion forSanctions and a Motion for Protective Order. ECF Nos. 175,176. The Court sets aside meritless contentions regardinglocal counsel requirements, meet and confers (which therecord demonstrates would be futile), and a long back andforth regarding whether Plaintiff would appear virtually forher deposition. ECF Nos. 175 at 2-3, 175-1. Plaintiff contendsthe deposition was set unilaterally, which is not true as thedate and time was selected by Plaintiff during the December17, 2025 hearing before the Court. ECF No. 172 at 7. Plaintiffreconstitutes her presentation at the deposition itself (ECF No.175 at 4-5 compare ECF No.165-4) at which defense counseldid repeatedly ask her if she was refusing to proceed with thedeposition.Plaintiff's filing cites the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,Local Rules, the Constitution and then returns to her themethat Defendants have not provided her all the discoveryshe seeks. ECF No. 175 at 6-7, 9. Plaintiff, who is not anattorney, offers arguments not germane to the issue of herrefusal to proceed with answering questions at her deposition,and contends defense counsel improperly made threats ofsanctions (id. at 8-9), which the Court warned Plaintiff couldbe sought if her deposition did not proceed. ECF No. 172 at13-14.Plaintiff cites case law that must be AI generated. See EFCNo. 175 at 10 and compare Plaintiff's citations to (1) Cruzv. Fox, 202 F.R.D. 419, 423 (N.D. Ill 2001) (allegedlydiscussing premature deposition when essential discoveryis not provided) and Green, Tweed of Delaware, Inc. v.DuPont Dow Elastomers, L.L.C., 202 F.R.D. 418, 423 (E.D.Pa. 2001) (discussing the assertion of privilege), and (2)Barrow v. Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., 262 F.R.D. 549,553 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (allegedly granting a protective orderwhen a deposition was premature) and Pioneer Drive, LLCv. Nissan Diesel America, Inc., 262 F.R.D. 552, 553 (D.Mont. 2009) (which discusses various deposition issues, saysnothing about prematurity but does recognize “[s]anctionsunder Rule 37 are designed to be flexible so that courtshave the discretion to ‘vouchsafe full discovery for thejust, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the lawsuit.’[citation omitted].”).3*4 Plaintiff complains that Defendants continued to pressforward with her deposition despite her unwavering themethat they had not responded to discovery, while failing toidentify what it is she seeks that she does not have. ECFNo. 175 at 10-11. And, despite having been ordered toappear at deposition and answer questions on the date sheselected, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order “that nofurther deposition be compelled until Defendants produce andrespond to all outstanding discovery ....” Id. at 12.The remainder of Plaintiff's Opposition and Motion reiterateher arguments, but also offer that the fees and costs soughtby Defendants are excessive and should be denied. Id. at15-17. Plaintiff recites one and one-half pages of “rightsin connection with a future deposition” (capitalizationsremoved), and requests a protective order postponingher deposition until Defendants provide “all outstandingdiscovery relevant to this case” and her motions to compelhave been resolved. Id. at 17-22.Unfortunately, Defendants do little to oppose Plaintiff'sMotion for Protective Order. ECF No. 180. Defendantscontend Plaintiff failed to meet and confer before filing herMotion; however, the Court finds such efforts would be futileand, thus, this failure is not a basis to deny Plaintiff's Motion.It is true that Defendants had previously filed a Motion toCompel; however, Defendants offer no law supporting theircontention that Plaintiff cannot file a motion for protectiveorder in response to a motion to compel. Plaintiff's Reply(ECF No. 184) is off point (discussing defense counsel'spro hac vice filing, contending her Motion for ProtectiveOrder was “administrative,” and discussing the importance ofprotective orders). ECF No. 184 at 3, 4, 6-8. To the extentPlaintiff contends she adequately met and conferred (id. at4-6), the Court disagrees, but the Court will not be decidingthe present filings based on such failure.c. Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Discovery.Plaintiff has two Motions to Compel discovery pendingbefore the Court. ECF Nos. 173, 177. For the first time,Plaintiff includes in her Motion to Compel at ECF No. 173specific discovery requests and responses by Defendants theCourt was able to easily locate and review. ECF No. 173-2.4Defendants return to their argument regarding Plaintiff failingto meet and confer (which the Court finds futile), but also statethey have responded to all of Plaintiff's requests citing ECFNo. 173-2. However, a review of these responses demonstratesome supplementation is appropriate as discussed below.d. Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline.When repetition and hyperbole is removed, Plaintiff's Motionis worthy of consideration only to the extent that she is
AURORE SIMS, Plaintiff, v. ASSIA SOUILY-LEFAVE; AROUND..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4ordered to appear for her deposition and Defendants areordered to supplement certain written discovery responses.To resolve the never-ending argument regarding receivingresponses to discovery before appearing at deposition, theCourt sets a specific schedule below. No other discovery ispermitted. And, to be clear, if Plaintiff's fails or refusesto answer questions at deposition in good faith, the Courtwill consider further sanctions up to and potentially includingthat Plaintiff's Complaint be stricken and judgment entered infavor of Defendants.II. Discussion“Discovery is supposed to proceed with minimal involvementof the Court.” F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203(E.D. Tenn. 1986). Counsel and parties must strive to becooperative, practical, and sensible throughout the discoveryprocess. Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015). Controlling law requires partiesto engage in discovery in good faith, e.g., Asea, Inc. v. S.Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981), and toengage in discovery conferral efforts in good faith, e.g., Fed.R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Seeking judicial resolution of voluminousdiscovery disputes is generally a red flag that these dutieshave not been met. See 4R4 Sons, LLC v. Tru G. Willhelm, Inc.,2022 WL 2905468, at *1 (D. Nev. July 22, 2022); see alsoKing Tuna, Inc. v. Luen Thai Fishing Ventures, Ltd., 2010 WL11515316, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2010). The parties havenot demonstrated commitment to a good faith, cooperativediscovery process.*5 The Court is vested with broad discretion to managediscovery. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9thCir. 2012). Indeed, as the Supreme Court explains, “judgesshould not hesitate to exercise appropriate control over thediscovery process.” Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 176(1979). To that end, “district courts should not neglect theirpower to restrict discovery where ‘justice requires [protectionfor] a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,oppression, or undue burden or expense.’ ” Id. (quotingFed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(c)). In reliance upon this language, theCourt may exercise its authority to limit interrogatories anddocument requests despite a party waiving its ability to object.Anthony v. Pro Custom Solar, LLC, 2022 WL 17216822, at*4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2022). Similarly, “[a] party's failure toobject to a discovery request does not automatically warrantan order to compel. Under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), the court hasan independent duty to ‘limit the frequency or extent ofdiscovery’ on its own.” Drive Time Auto., Inc. v. MarlonDeguzman, 2015 WL 316817, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 23, 2015).Here, following a review of the discovery requests discussedin Plaintiff's Motion at ECF No. 173, the Court findsDefendants must supplement their responses to Plaintiff'sJanuary 3, 2026 Request for Admissions stating theirobjections, but then admitting or denying each Request.Defendants’ must also respond to Plaintiff's January3, 2026 Interrogatory No. 1. The Court exercises itsconsiderable authority to manage discovery and, thus, amendsInterrogatory No. 2 to request Defendants identify whatPlaintiff told Defendants (if anything) regarding the useof the photograph at issue. If Defendants contend thisassumes facts not in evidence, they may state such objectionand any other than may have; however, if this meansthere was nothing stated by Plaintiff, Defendants must alsosubstantively respond to this effect.The Court finds Interrogatory No. 3 unintelligible and,therefore, no response is required. Defendants must alsorespond to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5. However, InterrogatoryNo. 4 is reworded to require Defendants to identify anyindividual or business they contend owns a copyright to thephotograph at issue. Defendants may state objections clearlyand thoroughly (with support as necessary, and not as aconclusion) and then state a substantive response subject toand without waiving the objections stated. A response maystate something to the effect that there is no copyright orownership of a copyright in dispute (if that is Defendants’position). Interrogatory No. 5 is reworded to ask Defendantsto provide what, if anything, was considered by Defendantswith respect to copyright ownership before the photographat issue was posted in October 2021. Again, objections maybe stated, but subject to and without waiving the objections,a response must be provided. Interrogatory No. 6 seeksirrelevant information and, thus, no response is required.With respect to Plaintiff's January 3, 2026 misnumbereddocument requests, to the extent there are any documents onwhich answers to interrogatories 1, 2, 4, or 5 rely, Defendantsmay state objections, but must produce documents unlessprivileged, in which case a privilege log is required. To theextent there are documents Defendants contend demonstratecopyright ownership of the photograph at issue and ordocuments relating to the decision to post such photograph,and the documents have not been produced, they must be.If there are documents in Defendants’ possession, custodyor control demonstrating knowledge that the photograph atissue was copyrighted by someone other than one or bothDefendants, and such documents have not been produced,
AURORE SIMS, Plaintiff, v. ASSIA SOUILY-LEFAVE; AROUND..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5they must be. To the extent Defendants are in possession ofdocuments showing when (if at all) the photograph at issuewas uploaded to Meta/Instagram by one or both Defendants,and such documents have not been produced, they must be.Defendants are not required to obtain documents from Metato respond to this request. No response is required to Requestfor Production No. 7 as it is facially vague, overbroad, andunduly burdensome.*6 Defendants may assert objections to any of the requestsreworded above, however, the objections must be wellsupported. To the extent there are no documents responsiveto the requests for production as identified above, Defendantsmay respond with the same. To the extent all responsivedocuments were produced, Defendants must identify theBates Number of the responsive documents, but they need notbe reproduced.The objections and responses to the Interrogatories, Requestsfor Admission, and Request for Production of Documents aredue April 30, 2026. Defendants’ supplemental responses areto be served by electronic mail (email).With respect to Plaintiff's Deposition: she must appear andanswer questions on Thursday, May 14, 2026 at 11 a.m.The Notice of Deposition will state Plaintiff's deposition willbe by videoconferencing. This means Plaintiff will appearby video, counsel for Defendants will appear by video, anda court reporting service will swear Plaintiff in and recordthe videotaped deposition. Plaintiff may choose to have acertified French interpreter present at her expense. If Plaintiffchooses to have an interpreter present, she must provide thename and certification to defense counsel no later than 3 p.m.Eastern Daylight Time on May 7, 2026 by emailing suchcounsel the name and certification. Interpreter services willbe paid by Plaintiff. Exhibits that may be used during thedeposition are to be emailed to Plaintiff and the court reporterin the same email no later than 3 p.m. Eastern DaylightTime on May 12, 2026.III. OrderIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Motion to CompelProduction of Documents (ECF No. 162) is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion toCompel and Sanctions (ECF No. 165) is GRANTED in partand DENIED in Part.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must appear andanswer questions on Thursday, May 14, 2026 at 11 a.m.The Notice of Deposition must state the deposition will beby videoconferencing. This means Plaintiff will appear byvideo, counsel for Defendants will appear by video, and acourt reporting service will swear Plaintiff in and record thevideotaped deposition. Plaintiff may have a certified Frenchinterpreter present at her expense. If Plaintiff chooses tohave an interpreter present, she must provide the name andcertification to defense counsel no later than 3 p.m. EasternDaylight Time on May 7, 2026 by emailing such counselthe name and certification. Exhibits are to be delivered inaccordance with the above.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ request forSanctions is held in abeyance. If Plaintiff appears andresponds to questions honestly and in good faith at herdeposition, no sanctions will be awarded. If Plaintiff fails toappear or appears but does not answer questions honestly andin good faith, sanctions up to and including the striking of herComplaint will be considered by the Court.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defense Counsel mustconduct the deposition professionally at all times. Neitherparty is raise their voice.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion toCompel Discovery (ECF No. 173) is GRANTED in part andDENIED in part. Defendants must supplement responses toPlaintiff's discovery requests as stated above.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion forProtective Order (ECF No. 176) is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Third Motion toCompel Discovery (ECF No. 177) is DENIED.*7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motionto Extend Discovery (ECF No. 183) is GRANTED only tothe extent that discovery is extended to allow Defendantsto supplement responses to previously propounded writtendiscovery no later than April 30, 2026, and Plaintiff is toappear for her deposition, by videoconference, and respondto questions on May 14, 2026. No other discovery ispermitted. The discovery period in this case closes at theconclusion of Plaintiff's deposition on May 14, 2026.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the last day to filedispositive motions is June 15, 2026.
AURORE SIMS, Plaintiff, v. ASSIA SOUILY-LEFAVE; AROUND..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the last day to file theproposed joint pretrial order (“JPTO”) is July 15, 2026 unlessa dispositive motion is pending on this date in which case thedue date for the proposed JPTO is automatically advanced tothirty (30) days after dispositive motions are resolved by theCourt.DATED this 7th day of April, 2026.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 948233Footnotes1In the District of Nevada, where this case is obviously being litigated, the response to a motion must be titled an oppositionor response, not a declaration. A declaration should support facts or authentication and not argue points and authorities.See LR 7-2(a), (d). Defendants are advised that, in the future, they must comply with local rules of this district.2No Reply in support of the Motion to Compel Sanctions was filed.3Plaintiff correctly cites Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984), but this case does not discuss sequencingof discovery and instead states: “Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective orderis appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” To the extent Plaintiff relied on artificial intelligence to locatecase law citation to support her arguments, the Court cautions her that it is her responsibility to check all of her citesto ensure they are accurate and say what she claims they do. The failure to do so may expose her to sanctions underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.4Unlike ECF No. 173, ECF No. 177 is devoid of specifics and, thus, is denied below.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access