Mills v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER Denying the parties' 9 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 03/09/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
HEATHER MILLS,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00097-KJD-CWH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order
(doc. # 9).

16

The Court has reviewed the parties’ discovery plan and finds that it does not comply with Local

17

Rule 26-1. Absent a court order, “discovery periods longer than one hundred eighty (180) days from

18

the date the first defendant answers or appears will require special scheduling review.” Loc. R. 26-

19

1(e)(1). Additionally, parties that request a discovery period that is longer or different must state on

20

the face of their discovery plan, in bold type, that it is “SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH

21

LR 26-1(e)” and “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.” Loc. R. 26-1(d). Parties must

22

also provide “a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case.”

23

Loc. R. 26-1(d).

24

Here, the parties fail to comply with the discovery plan format, and request 205 days to

25

complete discovery without providing any reasons why the extended discovery period is necessary.

26

Accordingly, the parties’ Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (doc. # 9) is denied

27
28

without prejudice.
DATED: March 9, 2016
______________________________________
____________________________
_
_ _____
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
Hoffman, Jr
f an Jr.
n,
United States Magistrate Judge
s Magistrate
M s