Cantrell et al v. Capital One, N.A.

Filing 25

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's 24 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order is Denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, or the parties if Plaintiffs contact Defendant to fulfill their duty under Fed. R. Civ. P 26(f) Local Rule 26-1(d), shall file a revised Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order in compliance with LR 26-1, including any request for special scheduling review, within seven (7) days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. on 02/17/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

JUNE M. CANTRELL and FREDDIE
CANTRELL, JR.,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAPITAL ONE, N.A., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

13

Case No. 2:15-cv-02023-GMN-GWF
ORDER

The Court has received Defendant’s Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Submitted in

14

Compliance with LR 26-1(e) (#24) filed February 16, 2016.1 LR 26-1(e)(1) sets a period of 180

15

days as a presumptively reasonable amount of time in which to conduct discovery. Discovery plans

16

requesting longer than 180 days from the date the first defendant answers or appears require special

17

scheduling review. LR 26-1(d) is explicit:

18

20

Plans requesting special scheduling review shall include, in addition to the
information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(e), a statement of the
reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case or, in cases in
which the parties disagree as to the form or contents of the discovery plan, a
statement of each party’s position on each point in dispute.

21

Defendant has failed to comply with the requirements of LR 26-1. Accordingly,

22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order

19

23

(#24) is denied, without prejudice.

24

...

25

...

26

...

27
28

1

Defendant represents that it attempted to contact Plaintiffs to schedule a meet and confer in
compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local Rule 26-1(d). However, these attempts were
unsuccessful and Defendant unilaterally submitted this Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order.

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, or the parties if Plaintiffs contact Defendant

2

to fulfill their duty under Fed. R. Civ. P 26(f) Local Rule 26-1(d), shall file a revised Discovery Plan

3

and Scheduling Order in compliance with LR 26-1, including any request for special scheduling

4

review, within seven (7) days of the date of this order.

5

DATED this 17th day of February, 2016.

6
7
8

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2