Miller v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 12

ORDER Denying 11 Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling. Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order due by 11/12/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/8/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

ELENA MILLER,

12

Plaintiff(s),

13

vs.

14

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

15
Defendant(s).
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01659-APG-NJK
ORDER DENYING PROPOSED
DISCOVERY PLAN (Docket No. 13)

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

18

11, 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. 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 roughly six months of additional time

23

for discovery based on the unelaborated assertion that there is expected to be a “large volume of

24

documents and information.” See Docket No. 11 at 2. This is not a sufficient reason for extended

25

discovery. Third, the discovery plan erroneously states on multiple occasions that it is

26

“SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(e).” See, e.g., id. (emphasis in original).

27

That moniker is appropriate where the deadlines requested follow the presumptively reasonable

28

discovery period. See Local Rule 26-1(d). “If longer deadlines are sought, the plan shall state on its

1

face “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.” Id. As noted above, the parties are

2

seeking a discovery period that does not comport with the deadlines outlined in Local Rule 26-1(e).

3

Accordingly, the proposed discovery plan and scheduled order is hereby DENIED. The parties

4

shall submit a proposed discovery plan that complies with the Local Rules no later than November

5

12, 2013.

6

“It is a simple task to comply with the Local Rules governing submission of a proposed

7

discovery plan.” Sierzega v. Country Preferred Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist LEXIS 120095, *1 (D.

8

Nev. Aug. 22, 2013). “The Local Rules clearly articulate a set of deadlines that are deemed

9

presumptively reasonable, and establish the procedures for requesting deadlines different from the

10

typical deadlines.” Id. The parties have now failed to comply with straightforward rules regarding

11

submission of a discovery plan (and the holding of the Rule 26(f) conference) twice. The Court

12

expects the future discovery plan to be filed in this case will comply with the Local Rules. To the

13

extent it does not, counsel and the parties should be aware that the Court may impose sanctions.

14

See, e.g., Local Rule IA 4-1.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: November 8, 2013

17
18

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2