Arcuri v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company et al

Filing 21

ORDER Setting a Hearing set for 5/29/2013 at 02:30 PM in LV Courtroom 3B before Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe re 20 Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/23/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

PAIGE ANN ARCURI,

12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

13

Pending before the Court is the parties’ third proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 20. The

8
9
10

Plaintiff(s),
vs.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

11
Defendants.

Case No. 2:13-cv-00416-GMN-NJK
ORDER SETTING HEARING
(Docket No. 20)

14

Court has already twice denied the parties’ proposed discovery plans based on identified non-

15

compliance with the Local Rules, and the Court has twice ordered that a new proposed discovery

16

plan be filed that does comply with the Local Rules. Docket Nos. 14, 17. In the last such order, the

17

Court repeated that Local Rule 26-4 was misstated in the second proposed discovery plan, as it had

18

been in the first proposed discovery plan. Local Rule 26-4 requires that “requests for extending

19

discovery deadlines must be filed no later than 21 days before the subject deadline sought to be

20

extended.” See Docket No. 17 at 1 (quoting Docket No. 14). The third proposed discovery plan

21

continues to be deficient in this respect, stating that requests to change any of the deadlines in the

22

discovery plan may be made up to 21 days before the discovery cut-off. Docket No. 20 at 3. This

23

remains inaccurate. By way of example, under Local Rule 26-4, a request to extend the deadline for

24

initial expert disclosures must be filed at least 21 days before the initial expert disclosure deadline.

25

A request to extend the deadline for initial expert disclosures filed 21 days before the discovery cut-

26

off would be untimely.

27
28

The Court is also concerned by counsels’ failure to follow clear Court orders. In addition to
the failure to comply with the Court orders in drafting the second and third proposed discovery

1

plans, counsel also failed to comply with the Court’s order that the third proposed discovery plan be

2

filed no later than May 20, 2013. See Docket No. 17 at 1. Instead, counsel filed the third proposed

3

discovery plan on May 22, 2013.

4

The Court has previously cautioned the parties that they are required to comply with the

5

Local Rules and Court orders, and that the failure to do so can result in sanctions. Docket No. 17 at

6

1 n.1. Despite that warning, counsel continue to violate the Local Rules and Court orders.

7
8
9
10

Accordingly, counsel for all parties are ORDERED to appear before the Court in courtroom
3B on May 29, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 23, 2013

11
12

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2