Valentine v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 13

ORDER Denying 12 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling. The parties shall file no later than 8/21/2014 a Proposed Discovery Plan that complies with the applicable local rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/14/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

CHRISTY VALENTINE,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

vs.

13

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-0999-RCJ-NJK
ORDER DENYING PROPOSED
DISCOVERY PLAN
(Docket No. 12)

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order,

17

Docket No. 12, which is DENIED for the reasons discussed below.1 First, proposed discovery plans

18

must state the date on which the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared. Local Rule 26-

19

1(e)(1). The parties failed to do so. Second, proposed discovery plans must state the number of days

20

sought for discovery calculated from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears.

21

Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The parties failed to do so. Third, where a discovery period is sought that is

22

longer than 180 days calculated from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears, the

23

parties must indicate “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED” on the face of the plan

24

and must explain why additional time is necessary. Local Rule 26-1(d). The parties seek a

25

discovery period of 234 days, but improperly indicated that their discovery plan complied with the

26
27
28

1

The Court notes that the parties also failed to comply with the Local Rules with respect to the
deadline for filing a proposed discovery plan. See Docket No. 11.

1

presumptively reasonable schedule outlined in Local Rule 26-1(e) and provide no reason justifying a

2

period for discovery longer than 180 days. Fourth, proposed discovery plans must include a

3

signature block for the assigned judge’s approval. Local Rule 26-1(e)(5). The parties failed to

4

include a signature block.

5
6

Accordingly, the parties’ proposed discovery plan is DENIED. The parties shall file, no later
than August 21, 2014, a proposed discovery plan that complies with the applicable local rules.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: August 14, 2014

9
10

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2