Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. First Cagayan Leisure & Resort Corp. et al

Filing 63

ORDER Denying without prejudice the 62 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling. The parties shall file a new Joint Proposed Discovery Plan that complies in full with Local Rule 26-1, no later than 4/13/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/8/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

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

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.,

10

Plaintiff(s),

11

v.

12

FIRST CAGAYAN LEISURE & RESORT
CORPORATION, et al.,

13
14

Defendant(s).

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

Case No. 2:14-cv-00424-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 62)

15
Pending before the Court is the parties’ proposed discovery plan (which is mislabeled as a joint
16
Rule 26(f) report). Docket No. 62. Because the discovery plan fails to comply with Local Rule 26-1(d)
17
and (e), it is DENIED without prejudice.
18
Discovery plans must “state the date the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared[.]”
19
Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). Local Rule 26-1(e)(1) establishes 180 days, measured from that date, as the
20
presumptively reasonable time in which to complete discovery. Where more than 180 days of discovery
21
are sought, the proposed discovery plan must state on its face, “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW
22
REQUESTED” and provide an explanation as to why the parties believe additional time is required.
23
Local Rule 26-1(d).
24
The parties’ proposed discovery plan first runs afoul of Rule 26-1(e) by failing to state when the
25
first Defendant answered or appeared. See Docket No. 62 at 3. Second, and more importantly, the
26
parties state that they only request a discovery period of 180 days. See id. (providing that the parties
27
seek a discovery period of 180 days in compliance with Local Rule 26-1(e)). The parties, however,
28

1

failed to “measure[] from the date the first defendant appeared.” Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). As a result,

2

the parties erred in calculating the discovery date and request a period longer than 180 days. Therefore,

3

Local Rule 26-1(e)(1) requires them to seek special scheduling review, and Local Rule 26-1(d) requires

4

them to include a statement of reasons justifying the longer discovery period. The parties failed to do

5

either.

6

Further, in contrast to Plaintiff’s position, pending dispositive motions do not automatically stay

7

discovery. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). Unless otherwise

8

ordered, the parties are expected to discharge their duty to diligently conduct discovery.

9

Accordingly, the proposed discovery plan is hereby DENIED without prejudice. The parties

10

shall file a new joint proposed discovery plan that complies in full with Local Rule 26-1, no later than

11

April 13, 2016.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED: April 8, 2016.

14
15

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2