Cahill v. Kent

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 4/16/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

JUSTIN M. CAHILL,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

LARRY A. KENT,

13

Defendant.

14
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:15-cv-00468-RFB-CWH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order
(doc. # 10), filed April 15, 2015.

17

The Court has reviewed the proposed discovery plan and finds that it does not comply with

18

Local Rule (“LR”) 26-1. Absent a court order, “discovery periods longer than one hundred eighty

19

(180) days from the date the first defendant answers or appears will require special scheduling

20

review.” LR 26-1(e)(1). Additionally, parties that request a discovery period that is longer or

21

different must provide “a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply

22

to the case.” LR 26-1(d). Here, the parties request a special scheduling order with competing dates,

23

but do not provide any reasons why an extended discovery period is necessary or why the parties

24

cannot agree to the same discovery dates.

25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Discovery Plan and

26

Scheduling Order (doc. # 10) is denied.

27

DATED: April 16, 2015

28
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge