Lasko v. American Board of Surgery, Inc. et al

Filing 109

ORDER Denying 108 Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery with Interrogatories and Request for Documents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties submit a proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order by 5/12/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 04/30/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

KEITH ALAN LASKO,

10
Plaintiffs,
11
vs.
12
AMERICAN BOARD OF SURGERY, et al.,
13
14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-01893-JAD-NJK
ORDER

15
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Keith Alan Lasko’s Motion for Discovery with
16

Interrogatories and Request for Documents, Docket No. 108.1

17
I.

DISCUSSION

18
A party “may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as
19
required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule
20
26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
21
26(d); see also, e.g., First Option Mortg. LLC v. Tabbert, 2012 WL 1669430, at *1 (D. Nev. May
22
11, 2012). Upon a showing of good cause, a court may permit expedited discovery before the
23
Rule 26(f) conference. Id. Good cause exists “where the need for expedited discovery, in
24
consideration for the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.”
25
Id. (quoting American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp.2d 1063, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2009)).
26
27
1

28

Assuming discovery is authorized to commence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
require litigants to file Motions with the Court to issue interrogatories or requests for production.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34.

1

There is no record of the parties having conferred as required by Rule 26(f). Plaintiff,

2

therefore, may not seek discovery from any source.2 Moreover, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to set

3

forth any reason, much less good cause, for the Court to order discovery before the Rule 26(f)

4

conference. Absent any stipulation between the parties allowing for discovery, the Court must

5

accordingly deny Plaintiff’s Motion to seek discovery at this juncture.

6

II.

CONCLUSION

7

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery with Interrogatories

9

and Request for Documents is DENIED.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must submit either a joint proposed

11

discovery plan and scheduling order in compliance with the Local and Federal Rules, or a request

12

to stay discovery, citing the proper standards, no later than May 12, 2014.

13

DATED: April 30, 2014.

14
15

________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

2

The Court liberally construes Lasko’s claims. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d
920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging that courts must construe pro se motions and pleadings
liberally). Nevertheless, “Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other
litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986).
-2-