Bridge v. Credit One Financial

Filing 17

ORDER Denying without prejudice 16 Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order due by 12/16/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/9/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
WILLIAM BRIDGE,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan and scheduling order (Docket

17

No. 16), which is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan is

18

deficient in numerous ways. First, Plaintiff represents that the parties met and conferred, but were

19

unable to stipulate to the terms for the discovery plan. Docket No. 16, at 2. Pursuant to Local Rule

20

26-1(d), the parties are to submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order fourteen days after

21

the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference. Second, Plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan fails

22

to include “a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case.”

23

Local Rule 26-1(d). Local Rule 26-1(e)(1) establishes 180 days, measured from the date the first

24

defendant answers or otherwise appears, as a presumptively reasonable time to complete discovery.

25

When more than 180 days of discovery are sought, the proposed discovery plan must provide an

26

explanation as to why the parties believe additional time is required. Local Rule 26-1(d). Here,

27

Plaintiff requests 330 days from when Defendant filed its Answer, without providing a reason why

28

a longer time period should apply. Docket No. 16, at 2. Third, Plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan

11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
CREDIT ONE FINANCIAL,
14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:14-cv-01512-LDG-NJK
ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY
PLAN
(Docket No. 16)

1

misstates Local Rule 26-4, in that it provides that requests to extend deadlines in the scheduling

2

order need only be filed 20 days before the discovery cut-off. See Docket No. 16 at 5. Local Rule

3

26-4 requires that any request to extend deadlines set forth in the scheduling order must be submitted

4

at least 21 days before the subject deadline.

5

Accordingly,

6

Plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan and scheduling order (Docket No. 16) is hereby DENIED

7

without prejudice. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and to submit a stipulated

8

discovery plan and scheduling order, that complies with the Local Rules, no later December 16,

9

2014.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED: December 9, 2014

12
13
14
15

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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