Woodard v. Cox et al

Filing 48

ORDER that the parties are ORDERED to engage in a Rule 26(f) meeting no later than August 25, 2015, and submit a stipulated discovery plan no later than September 8, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/14/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
GUY R. WOODARD,

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15

Plaintiff is a former inmate who was housed at Southern Desert Correctional Center from

16

April 2012 until he was paroled on January 7, 2013. See Docket No. 41, at 2. Plaintiff filed his

17

original complaint on February 21, 2014. Docket No. 1-1. Plaintiff is not presently incarcerated.

18

See Docket.

10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
JAMES COX, et al.,
13
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:14-cv-00272-RFB-NJK
ORDER

19

On April 22, 2014, this Court issued a screening order and stayed the case for 90 days to give

20

the parties an opportunity to engage in informal settlement discussions. Docket Nos. 3, 5. On July

21

22, 2014, the Court extended the stay until August 20, 2014, to give the parties time to meet and

22

attempt to finalize a settlement agreement. Docket No. 11. On August 19, 2014, the Court granted

23

Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference and extended the stay until November 12, 2014.

24

Docket No. 14. The Court held a settlement conference on October 28, 2014, but no settlement was

25

reached. Docket No. 27.

26

On October 29, 2014, this case was referred to the Pilot Pro Bono Program for the purpose

27

of identifying pro bono counsel. Docket No. 30. On November 14, 2014, the Court granted

28

Plaintiff’s motion to stay the case until Plaintiff’s appointment of pro bono counsel. Docket No. 35.

1

The Court ordered that upon the appointment of pro bono counsel, Defendants must file and serve

2

an answer or other response to the complaint within 60 days. Id., at 3. Plaintiff was appointed pro

3

bono counsel on December 15, 2014. Docket No. 38.

4

On February 11, 2015, Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss. Docket No. 41. On

5

February 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. Docket No. 43. Defendants did

6

not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to amend. Docket No. 45. On August 13, 2015, the Court granted

7

Plaintiff’s motion to amend and denied without prejudice Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Docket

8

No. 47.

9

To date, no scheduling order has been entered in this case. See Docket. The fact that

10

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, standing alone, does not act as an automatic stay of the parties’

11

discovery obligations. See, e.g., Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev.

12

2013) (quoting Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 560 (D. Nev. 2011)). Accordingly,

13

the parties are ORDERED to engage in a Rule 26(f) meeting no later than August 25, 2015, and

14

submit a stipulated discovery plan no later than September 8, 2015.

15

DATED: August 14, 2015

16
17
18

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-