Ruhlmann et al v. Rudolfsky et al

Filing 93

ORDER Denying the parties' 91 Amended Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order as it fails to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 26-4. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/11/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
MAX RUHLMANN, et al.,
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
GLENN RUDOLFSKY,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00879-RFB-NJK

ORDER
(Docket No. 91)

17

Pending before the Court is an amended joint proposed discovery plan, filed on August 10, 2016.

18

Docket No. 91. On June 2, 2016, the Court entered a scheduling order in this matter. Docket No. 75.

19

The parties’ present filing essentially asks the Court to extend certain deadlines set forth in that

20

scheduling order. See, e.g., Docket No. 91 at 2.

21

A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the Court’s consent.

22

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). Requests to modify the Court’s scheduling order must include: (1) a statement

23

specifying the discovery completed; (2) a specific description of the discovery that remains to be

24

completed; (3) the reasons why the remaining discovery was not completed within the time limits set

25

by the discovery plan; and (4) a proposed schedule for completing all remaining discovery. See LR 26-

26

4.

27

//

28

//

1
2

The parties’ amended joint proposed discovery plan fails to comply with the requirements of
Local Rule 26-4. Accordingly, it is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED: August 11, 2016

5
6

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2