Strawder-McCurry v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER that 9 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order is DENIED. The parties are ordered, no later than June 10, 2013, to file another proposed discovery plan that complies with the Local Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/6/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

MELISSA STRAWDER-MCCURRY,

12

Plaintiff(s),

13

vs.

14

WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al.,

15

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-00618-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING PROPOSED
DISCOVERY PLAN (Docket No. 9)

16
17

Pending before the Court is the Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, Docket No.

18

9, which is hereby DENIED. The proposed discovery plan is deficient in a number of respects.

19

First, the Local Rules require proposed discovery plans to “state the date the first defendant

20

answered or otherwise appeared.” Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The submitted discovery plan fails to do

21

so.1 Second, the presumptive discovery period is 180 days from the date the first defendant answers

22

or appears. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The proposed plan seeks 233 days for discovery, but the parties

23

provide no explanation why extended discovery is needed as required. See Local Rule 26-1(d)

24

(requiring “a statement of the reasons why longer or different periods should apply to the case”).

25

Third, a proposed discovery plan seeking deadlines beyond those outlined in the Local Rules must

26

“state on its face “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.” Local Rule 26-1(d). The

27
28

1

From the Court’s review of the docket, Defendant answered on April 10, 2013. Docket No. 2.

1

submitted discovery plan fails to do so. Fourth, requests for extending discovery deadlines must be

2

filed no later than 21 days before the subject deadline sought to be extended. See Local Rule 26-4.

3

The submitted discovery plan misstates Local Rule 26-4.

4
5

Accordingly, the proposed discovery plan is DENIED. The parties are ordered, no later than
June 10, 2013, to file another proposed discovery plan that complies with the Local Rules.

6

In addition to the violations of the Local Rules outlined above, the parties also failed to

7

submit the proposed discovery plan by the deadline to do so. See Docket No. 8 (order to show cause

8

regarding failure to file proposed discovery plan).2 The Court expects strict compliance with the

9

Local Rules and reminds the parties that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in

10

sanctions. Local Rule IA 4-1.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: June 6, 2013

13
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

2

Further, the parties held the Rule 26(f) conference on May 21, 2013, see Docket No. 9 at 1,
which was also untimely.
2