Bank of America, N.A. v. Premier One Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 36

ORDER Denying 35 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling. Proposed Joint Discovery Plan due 11/5/15. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/29/15. (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
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00860-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING PROPOSED
DISCOVERY PLAN

16

Pending before the Court is the parties’ proposed joint discovery plan. Docket No. 35. The

17

proposed discovery plan is hereby DENIED as it fails to comply with Local Rule 26-1, which provides

18

that:

19
20
21

[Proposed joint 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 joint discovery plan first runs afoul of Rule 26-1(e) by
23
failing to state when Defendant answered or appeared. Docket No. 35 at 2. Here, the first defendant
24
appeared by filing a motion to dismiss on June 19, 2015. Docket No. 16. Second, and more
25
importantly, the parties assert that they only “seek reasonable time” to conduct discovery; however,
26
they request a discovery period of 381 days. Docket No. 35 at 3. The presumptively reasonable
27
discovery period is 180 days. See, e.g., Local Rule 26-1(e)(1).
28

1

The first reason the parties give for exceeding the presumptively reasonable discovery period is

2

that counsel are all litigating many similar lawsuits. See Docket No. 35 at 2. As the Court has

3

previously explained numerous times, that is not good reason to extend the discovery period. See, e.g.,

4

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Aurora Canyon Homeowners Association, Case No.2:15-cv-1308-MMD-

5

NJK (D. Nev. Aug. 21, 2015) (Docket No. 26) (citing Greene v. Alhambra Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2015 U.S.

6

Dist. Lexis 72697, *3 (D. Nev. June 3, 2015)). Second, the parties assert additional time is warranted

7

because motions to dismiss are pending. However, the pendency of a motion to dismiss does not in

8

itself warrant a longer discovery period. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D.

9

Nev. 2011). Indeed, the Local Rules are written to make clear that the presumptively reasonable

10

discovery period is 180 days from the date the first defendant “answers or appears.” See Local Rule

11

26-1(e)(1) (emphasis added).

12

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

13

ordered, no later than November 5, 2015, to file a proposed joint discovery plan that either (1) is based

14

on the 180-day reasonable period outlined in Local Rule 26-1, or (2) provides an adequate explanation

15

why a longer period should be granted.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED: October 29, 2015

18
19

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2