Martinez v. Karafeziev et al

Filing 14

ORDER. The discovery plan and scheduling order submitted by the parties does not comply with LR 26-1(e)(1). The parties shall, within 10 days of this order, either a submit a proposed discovery plan in compliance with LR 26-1(e) or a proposed plan s tating on its face "Special Scheduling Review Requested" and setting forth the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 6/11/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

OSCAR ULISES MARTINEZ, as Guardian of
FRANCIA V. CASTILLO,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KOSTADIN STOYKOV KARAFEZIEV and
)
BULEX SERVICE CORPORATION,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00569-JCM-GWF
ORDER

13
14

The Court has received the parties’ Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. LR 26-1(e)(1)

15

provides that unless otherwise ordered, discovery periods longer than one hundred eighty (180)

16

days from the date the first defendant answers or appears will require special scheduling review.

17

LR 26-1(d) states that if longer deadlines are sought, the plan shall state on its face “SPECIAL

18

SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.” Where such special scheduling review is requested, the

19

plan shall state the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply.

20

In this case, the first answer by a defendant in the case was filed on April 6, 2012.

21

Therefore, under LR 26-1(e), the standard 180 day period for discovery would expire on October 4,

22

2012. In their plan, however, Plaintiff requests a 243 day discovery cut-off and Defendants request

23

a 450 day discovery cut-off. The discovery plan and scheduling order submitted by the parties,

24

therefore, does not comply with LR 26-1(e)(1). Accordingly,

25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall, within ten (10) days of the date of this

26

order, either submit a proposed discovery plan in compliance with LR 26-1(e), or a proposed plan

27

...

28

...

1

stating on its face “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED” and setting forth therein

2

the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply.

3

DATED this 11th day of June, 2012.

4
5
6

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2