Lenny Spangler v. Nevada Property 1 LLC et al

Filing 35

ORDER Denying without prejudice 30 Parties' Joint Scheduling Conference Report. Further, parties' stipulation to stay discovery is DENIED without prejudice. The parties must submit a joint discovery plan and scheduling order, no later than January 31, 2014, which complies with the Local Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 1/24/14. (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

***
)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
NEVADA PROPERTY LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)
LENNY SPANGLER,

Case No. 2:14-cv-00125-GMN-NJK
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY PLAN
AND DENYING STAY
(Docket No. 30)

12
13

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Scheduling Conference Report Pursuant to Rule 16(b)

14

and 26(f), Docket No. 30, which is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Further, the parties’ stipulation to

15

stay discovery is DENIED without prejudice.

16

This case has been transferred to the District of Nevada and accordingly, all filings with the Court

17

must comply with the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada. Specifically, the parties must,

18

through local counsel, submit a joint discovery plan and scheduling order which complies with Local Rule

19

26-1 and all other applicable Local Rules. The parties’ current proposed discovery plan, Docket No. 30,

20

does not comply with the Local Rules and therefore, it is denied.

21

Next, within the parties’ proposed discovery plan, the parties state that they have agreed “to wait

22

for a determination of the Motion to Dismiss scheduled for January 27, 2014 to commence formal

23

discovery.” Id., at 1. Under the Local Rules, such a stipulation is not valid unless and until it has been

24

approved by the Court:

25
26

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.

27
28

LR 7-1(b).

1

Further, the pendency of a motion to dismiss alone does not in itself stay discovery deadlines. See,

2

e.g.,Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 502 (D. Nev. 2013) (“The

3

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a

4

potentially dispositive motion is pending”). Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D 597, 600 (D. Nev.

5

2011) (same). “It is well-established that a party seeking a stay of discovery carries the heavy burden of

6

making a strong showing why discovery should be stayed.” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601. “A showing that

7

discovery may involve some inconvenience and expense does not establish good cause for issuance of a

8

stay.” Id. Conclusory statements regarding the benefit of a stay are plainly insufficient. Id. at 601-02. In

9

order to meet this requirement, the movant must, as a threshold matter, establish that the “pending motion

10

must be potentially dispositive of the entire case or at least dispositive of the issue on which discovery is

11

sought.” Id. In the instant filing, the parties have failed to make the required showing for the Court to grant

12

a stay of discovery and they cannot unilaterally delay discovery without Court approval. See LR 6-1 and

13

LR 7-1. If the parties wish to delay or extend deadlines, they must seek a stay of discovery or deadline

14

extension from the Court.

15
16

As discussed above, the parties must submit a joint discovery plan and scheduling order, no later
than January 31, 2014, which complies with the Local Rules.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED: January 24, 2014.

19
20
21

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2