Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC

Filing 23

ORDER Denying Discovery Plan. The court hereby DENIES 22 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 10/12/2015. The Court further ADMONISHES Defendant's counsel for repeatedly submitting discovery plans that the undersigned has already found are improper. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/7/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01377-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY
PLAN

16

Pending before the Court is a proposed discovery plan seeking approximately 300 days to

17

conduct discovery. Docket No. 22. The presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days. See,

18

e.g., Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The pending discovery plan appears to be on a form that counsel in this case

19

and other counsel in similar cases have been submitting repeatedly in an attempt to obtain an extended

20

discovery period. That form provides two basic reasons for a longer discovery period: (1) the parties

21

have filed many similar lawsuits in a short timeframe and (2) the parties need “[a]dditional time” to

22

conduct discovery. The undersigned has now explained to Defendant’s counsel at least five different

23

times that these reasons are plainly insufficient to establish good cause for an extended discovery period.

24

First Horizon Home Loans v. Day Dawn Crossing Homeowners Ass’n, Case No. 2:15-cv-1262-JAD-

25

NJK (Docket No. 19); Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Flamingo Trails No. 7 Landscape Maintenance

26

Ass’n, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-1268-RFB-NJK (Docket No. 14); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v.

27

Southern Highlands Community Ass’n, 2:15-cv-1276-RFB-NJK (Docket No. 27); Nationstar Mortgage

28

LLC v. Aurora Canyon Homeowners Ass’n, Case No. 2:15-cv-1308-MMD-NJK (Docket No. 26);

1

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust v. Seven Hills Master Community Ass’n, Case No. 2:15-cv-1373-APG-NJK

2

(Docket No. 28).1 The Court once again reiterates that these reasons do not provide sufficiently good

3

cause to allow a discovery period beyond the presumptively reasonable 180-day period outlined in the

4

local rules.

5

The only other reason provided is that “guidance” may be provided from the Nevada Supreme

6

Court on lien issues relevant to this case. See Docket No. 22 at 2 (citing GMAC Mortgage, LLC v.

7

Nevada Assoc. Servs., Inc., Case No. 65260 (Nev.)). This undeveloped assertion also does not establish

8

good cause for an extended discovery period.

9

For the reasons discussed above, the Court hereby DENIES the pending discovery plan. No later

10

than October 12, 2015, the parties shall submit a new discovery plan that comports with the local rules.

11

The Court further ADMONISHES Defendant’s counsel for repeatedly submitting discovery plans that

12

the undersigned has already found are improper. Defendant’s counsel is expected to ensure that the

13

arguments presented have a reasonable basis in law and fact, and should expect that continued disregard

14

for the undersigned’s rulings may result in the imposition of sanctions. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: October 7, 2015

17

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendant’s counsel has also been informed of the deficiency of such a discovery plan by other
judges in the District. See, e.g., Wells Fargo Financial Nev. 2, Inc. v. SFR Investments Pool I, LLC, Case
No. 2:15-cv-576-RFB-CWH (Docket No. 27) (rejecting similar discovery plan); Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, 2:15-cv-133-APG-PAL (Docket No 11) (same).
2