Cornell v. Bonaventura et al

Filing 48

ORDER that 47 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order is DENIED without prejudice. The parties must, no later than May 8, 2015, either show cause in writing why they failed to timely file a proper discovery plan or they must file a proper joint discovery plan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/4/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

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

BRYAN CORNELL,

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14

Pending before the Court is a proposed discovery plan that was filed by certain Defendants.

15

Docket No. 47. The discovery plan is hereby DENIED without prejudice. See Local Rule 26-1(d)

16

(discovery plans must be submitted jointly); see also Docket No. 46 (requiring filing of a “joint”

17

discovery plan).1 The parties must, no later than May 8, 2015, either show cause in writing why they

18

failed to timely file a proper discovery plan or they must file a proper joint discovery plan. See

19

Docket No. 46.

10

Plaintiff(s),
vs.

11
JOHN BONAVENTURA, et al.,
12
Defendant(s).

20

ORDER
(Docket No. 47)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Case No. 2:14-cv-01906-APG-NJK

DATED: May 4, 2015

22

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In addition, as this Court has explained previously to Mr. Pool, Local Rule 26-4 was modified
approximately four years ago. See McMillen v. Las Vegas Township Constable’s Office, Case No. 2:14cv-780-APG-NJK, Docket No. 43 (July 28, 2014). The proposed discovery plan misstates the deadline
outlined in Local Rule 26-4 for seeking extensions. Docket No. 47 at 3. The Court again urges Mr. Pool
to become familiar with the Local Rules and to ensure that his filings comport with them.