How many times has an opposing party attempted to bolster their own argument by claiming it was signed per Rule 11? That argument should fail, and does when an affidavit or declaration is required.
Nev. Corp. Headquarters, Inc. v. Weinstein concerned a request for attorney’s fees, which normally wouldn’t merit a blog post. However, NRCP 54(d)(2)(B) requires these motions to be supported by counsel’s affidavit stating the fees were reasonable and actually and necessarily incurred. The moving party did not present an affidavit or declaration, instead arguing “counsel’s signature pursuant to NRCP 11 verified the information in the motion.” The argument failed in one sentence. “But these affidavit requirements are separate from the NRCP 11 signature requirement and appellants provide no support for the implicit contention that counsel’s signature per NRCP 11 fulfills the affidavit requirement.”
So, if you are involved in a matter, discovery or otherwise, that requires an affidavit or declaration, I suggest actually providing one.
 No. 75794, 2019 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 247, 2019 WL 1244662 (March 14, 2019).