Ruybal v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 17 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. The parties shall file, no later than May 22, 2015, a proposed discovery plan that complies with the applicable local rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/18/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
SHAWN RUYBAL,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12

vs.

13

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00508-GMN-NJK
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties’ proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order,
Docket No. 17, which is DENIED for the reasons discussed below.1

18

First, proposed discovery plans must state the date on which the first defendant answered or

19

otherwise appeared. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The discovery plan in this case refers to the answer filed

20

on April 27, 2015, but fails to acknowledge that Defendants filed a motion to dismiss a month earlier

21

on March 27, 2015. See Docket No. 5.

22

Second, proposed discovery plans must state the number of days sought for discovery

23

calculated from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1).

24

The parties failed to do so, and instead calculate the discovery period based on the filing of the

25

answer rather than the earlier motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 17 at 2.

26
27
28

1

In addition to the deficiencies outlined herein, the discovery plan was also not timely. See
Docket No. 16.

1

Third, the presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days calculated from the date the

2

first defendant answers or otherwise appears. See Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). When the parties seek a

3

longer discovery period, they must indicate “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED” on

4

the face of the proposed discovery plan. Local Rule 26-1(d). The parties failed to do so.2

5

Fourth, when a discovery period is sought that is longer than 180 days calculated from the

6

date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears, the parties must provide a statement of the

7

reason(s) why they seek a longer time period. Local Rule 26-1(d). The parties failed to do so.

8
9
10

For the reasons discussed more fully above, the parties’ proposed discovery plan is
DENIED. The parties shall file, no later than May 22, 2015, a proposed discovery plan that
complies with the applicable local rules.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: May 18, 2015

13

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2

27

When the discovery plan conforms to the Local Rules, it is required to include a notation on its
face in bold that it is being “SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(e).” Local Rule 26-1(d).
The pending discovery plan provides no notation of any kind.

28

2

26