Minelab Americas, Inc. v. UKR Trade, Inc. et al
ORDER Denying 25 Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order as premature. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 03/29/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MINELABS AMERICAS, INC.,
UKR TRADE, INC., et al.,
Case No. 2:12-cv-00827-GMN-NJK
ORDER DENYING PROPOSED
DISCOVERY PLAN AS PREMATURE
(Docket No. 25)
Pending before the Court is the parties’ proposed discovery plan (Docket No. 25), which is
hereby DENIED as premature. The requirement to file a discovery plan is triggered when the first
defendant “answers or otherwise appears.” See Local Rules 26-1(d), 26-1(e). To date, no answers
have been filed. Defendants UKR Trade, Inc. and Pavlenko have filed a motion to dismiss. See
Docket No. 12.1 While other types of motions to dismiss may trigger the discovery deadlines in the
Local Rules, a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is a special appearance limited to
challenging personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Gerber v. Riordon, 649 F.3d 514, 520 (6th Cir. 2011).
As such, there has been no appearance for purposes of Local Rule 26-1(d) and 26-1(3), and the
proposed discovery plan is premature.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 29, 2013
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
Judge Navarro has denied that motion with leave to re-file subject to jurisdictional discovery.
Docket No. 26. The parties shall commence the jurisdictional discovery forthwith.
The Court appreciates the parties’ efforts to ensure compliance with the Local Rules by filing
the discovery plan in an abundance of caution.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?