Augusta Investment Management, LLC v. Grunstad et al

Filing 31

ORDER re 30 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. The proposed discovery plan is hereby 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 March 4, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/1/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

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

AUGUSTA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT,
LLC,

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
DOMINIC GRUNSTAD, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00125-GMN-NJK
ORDER DENYING PROPOSED
DISCOVERY PLAN
(Docket No. 30)

16
Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 30. The
17
proposed discovery plan is hereby denied as it fails to comply with Local Rule 26. That rule provides that:
18

21

[Joint proposed 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[.]

22

Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The parties’ proposed discovery plan first runs afoul of Rule 26-1(e) by failing to

23

state when the first Defendant answered or appeared. See Docket No. 30 at 2. Here, the first defendant

24

appeared by filing a petition of removal on January 22, 2015. Docket No. 1. Second, and more

25

importantly, the parties seek to measure the discovery period from the date of the Rule 26(f) conference,

26

not “from the date the first defendant appear[ed].” Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). As a result, the parties request

27

a discovery period from January 22, 2015 until October 26, 2016 – 643 days. Docket No. 30 at 2. The

28

reason the parties seek this enlarged period due to the “volume of similar HOA lien dispute cases[.]” Id.

19
20

1

at 1. This is not good reason for an extended discovery period. See, e.g., Nationstar Mortgage LLC v.

2

Aurora Canyon Homeowners Association, Case No.2:15-cv-1308-MMD-NJK (D. Nev. Aug. 21, 2015)

3

(Docket No. 26) (citing Greene v. Alhambra Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72697, *3 (D. Nev.

4

June 3, 2015)).

5

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

6

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

7

4, 2016.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: March 1, 2016

10
11

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2