Donatell v. City of Las Vegas et al

Filing 34

ORDER Denying without prejudice 30 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. The parties must file a new joint proposed discovery plan that complies in full with Local Rule 26-1 no later than 2/11/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/4/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
JUDY DONATELL,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
CITY OF LAS VEGAS, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-02334-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 30)

16

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated joint proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 30.

17

The parties represent that they request a discovery period of 270 days. See Docket No. 30 at 3. However,

18

the parties fail to “measure[] from the date the first defendant appear[ed].” Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). Instead,

19

the parties err by calculating the discovery period using the date of the Rule 26(f) conference, January 28,

20

2016. Docket No. 30 at 3. Because Defendant Correct Care Solutions first appeared on December 17,

21

2015, and the parties seek to set the discovery deadline on October 28, 2016, the parties actually request

22

a discovery period of approximately 318 days. See id. The presumptively reasonable discovery period is

23

180 days. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1).

24

The parties seek additional time because “not all individual defendants have appeared” and

25

“Plaintiff intends to dismiss those Defendants that are not culpable.” Docket No. 30 at 5. The Court finds

26

that these reasons do not warrant such an extended discovery period. A pending motion dispositive motion

27

is an inadequate basis to stay or extend discovery. Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D.

28

Nev. 2011) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of

1

discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.”) Similarly, Plaintiff’s representation that she

2

intends to dismiss non-culpable defendants is an inadequate basis to warrant such an extended discovery

3

period.

4

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

5

file a new joint proposed discovery plan that complies in full with Local Rule 26-1, no later than February

6

11, 2016.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: February 4, 2016

9
10

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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