Computerized Screening, Inc. v. Healthsport, Inc.

Filing 43

ORDER that 42 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order is DENIED without prejudice. The parties must file a new joint proposed discovery plan that complies in full with Local Rule 26-1, no later than October 13, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/6/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
COMPUTERIZED SCREENING, INC.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
HEALTHSPOT, INC.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00573-RFB-NJK
ORDER DENYING PROPOSED
DISCOVERY PLAN (Docket No. 42)

16

Pending before the Court is the parties’ proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 42. The proposed

17

discovery plan is hereby denied as it fails to comply with Local Rule 26, despite the plan’s representation

18

that it is “submitted in compliance with Local Rule 26-1(e)[.]” Id., at 1. That rule provides that:

19

[Stipulated discovery plans] shall state the date the first defendant answered or
otherwise appeared, the number of days required for discovery measured from
the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears, and shall give the
calendar date on which discovery will close. Unless otherwise ordered, discovery
periods longer than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the first
defendant answers or appears will require special scheduling review[.]

20
21
22

Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The parties’ proposed discovery plan first runs afoul of Rule 26-1(e) by failing
23
to state when Defendant answered or appeared. Docket No. 42 at 2. Here, Defendant first appeared by
24
filing a motion to dismiss on June 30, 2014. Docket No. 11. Second, and more importantly, the parties
25
imply that they only request a discovery period of one hundred and eighty days. See Docket No. 42 at
26
2 (providing that the proposed discovery plan was submitted in compliance with Local Rule 26-1(e)).
27
However, the parties failed to “measure[] from the date the first defendant appear[ed].” Local Rule 2628

1

1(e)(1). Instead, the parties erred by apparently calculating the discovery date from the date when

2

Defendant filed an answer. See Docket No. 26. Because Defendant first appeared on June 30, 2014

3

and the parties seek to set the discovery deadline on February 7, 2016, the parties actually request a

4

discovery period of approximately 587 days. Therefore, Local Rule 26(e) requires them to seek special

5

scheduling review, and Local Rule 26-1(d) requires them to include a statement of reasons justifying

6

the longer period of time. The parties failed to do either.

7

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

8

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

9

October 13, 2015.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED: October 6, 2015

12
13

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2