Segal v. State Bar of Nevada

Filing 22

ORDER Denying 21 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order filed by Adam P. Segal, Esq. Joint Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 11/12/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/5/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

***
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ALAN LEFEBVRE, et al,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
ADAM P. SEGAL,

Case No. 2:13-cv-1511-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING PROPOSED
DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING
ORDER

13

Pending before the Court is what the parties have termed a proposed discovery plan and scheduling

14

order, but what is in reality the parties’ request for a stay of discovery. Docket No. 21. For the reasons

15

stated below, the Court DENIES the request.

16

The Complaint in the instant case was filed on August 22, 2013. Docket No. 1. Defendant filed

17

a motion to dismiss on September 12, 2013. Docket No. 5. The Rule 26(f) conference was required to be

18

held within 30 days thereafter. See Local Rule 26-1(d) (“Counsel for plaintiff shall initiate the scheduling

19

of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) meeting within thirty (30) days after the first defendant answers or otherwise

20

appears” (emphasis added)). The stipulated discovery plan was due 14 days after the Rule 26(f)

21

conference. See Local Rule 26-1(d) (“Fourteen (14) days after the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)

22

conference, the parties shall submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order”). Accordingly, and

23

as specifically stated on the docket, the stipulated discovery plan was due on October 27, 2013.1 Docket

24

No. 5.

25
1

26
27
28

The filing of a dispositive motion does not alter the requirement to file a proposed discovery plan.
See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (“The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion
is pending.”)

1

On November 4, 2013, after the parties had failed to timely file a stipulated discovery plan, the

2

Court issued an Order to Show Cause why they had failed to comply with the Local Rules. Docket No. 19.

3

The Court stated that the filing of a stipulated discovery plan would be sufficient to discharge the Order to

4

Show Cause. Id., at 2. On November 5, 2013, the parties filed the instant document, which they call a

5

proposed stipulated discovery plan and proposed order, and state that it is filed pursuant to, inter alia, LR

6

26-1(e). Docket No. 21. The document, however, completely fails to comply with the requirements of LR

7

26-1(e) and, instead, simply consists of the parties’ agreement that discovery should be stayed pending

8

decisions on a pending motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. Id., at 1-2.

9

The parties also state that they conferred, through counsel, on October 4, 2013, regarding discovery

10

deadlines. Id., at 2. It appears, then, that the parties agreed, over a month ago, to stay discovery deadlines,

11

but failed to request approval of this agreement from the Court. Under the Local Rules, such a stipulation

12

is not valid unless and until it has been approved by the Court:

13
14

No stipulations relating to proceedings before the Court except those set forth in Fed. R.
Civ. P. 29 shall be effective until approved by the Court. Any stipulation that would
interfere with any time set for completion of discovery, for hearing of a motion, or for trial,
may be made only with the approval of the Court.

15
16

LR 7-1(b).

17

Further, the pendency of a potentially dispositive motion alone does not in itself stay discovery

18

deadlines. See, e.g., Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, __ F.R.D. ___, 2013 WL

19

150185, *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 14, 2013) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic

20

or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending”). Tradebay, LLC v. eBay,

21

Inc., 278 F.R.D 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011) (same). “It is well-established that a party seeking a stay of

22

discovery carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be stayed.”

23

Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601. “A showing that discovery may involve some inconvenience and expense

24

does not establish good cause for issuance of a stay.” Id. Conclusory statements regarding the benefit of

25

a stay are plainly insufficient. Id. at 601-02. The parties have failed to make the required showing for the

26

Court to grant a stay of discovery.

27
28

2

1

The parties cannot unilaterally delay discovery without Court approval. See LR 6-1 and LR 7-1.

2

When parties wish to delay or extend deadlines, they must seek a stay of discovery or deadline extension

3

from the Court, using the proper standards. The Court DENIES the parties’ request for a stay of discovery,

4

and ORDERS the parties to file a joint proposed discovery plan no later than November 12, 2013.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: November 5, 2013

7
8
9

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3