Bank of America, N.A. v. Tapestry at Town Center Homeowners Association et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 13 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling without prejudice. The parties shall file, no later than April 26, 2016, an amended joint proposed discovery plan submitted in compliance with Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/19/16. (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
11
12
13
14
15

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
vs.
)
)
TAPESTRY AT TOWN CENTER
)
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00255-JCM-NJK
ORDER

16

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 13. Local Rule

17

26-1(e)(1) establishes 180 days, measured from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears,

18

as a presumptively reasonable time to complete discovery. Where more than 180 days of discovery are

19

sought, the proposed discovery plan must state on its face, “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW

20

REQUESTED” and provide an explanation as to why the parties believe additional time is required. Local Rule

21

26-1(d).

22

Here, the parties request special scheduling review and explain why they believe additional time is

23

required. Docket No. 13 at 2. The primary reason provided by the parties for exceeding the presumptively

24

reasonable discovery period is that counsel are all litigating many similar lawsuits. See id. That is not good

25

reason to extend the discovery period. See, e.g., Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Aurora Canyon

26

Homeowners Association, Case No.2:15-cv-1308-MMD-NJK (D. Nev. Aug. 21, 2015) (Docket No. 26)

27

(citing Greene v. Alhambra Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72697, *3 (D. Nev. June 3, 2015)).

28

//

1

The parties next rely on the fact that two defendants have yet to appear. Docket No. 13 at 2. Local

2

Rule 26-1(e)(1), however, measures the discovery period from “the date the first defendant answers or

3

appears[.]” Late appearances, therefore, are not incorporated into the measurement of the discovery period.

4

The last reason the parties provide is that the key witnesses are involved in hundreds of cases and have

5

limited availability. Docket No. 13 at 2. The Court has previously rejected this reason for a longer discovery

6

period. See, e.g., First Horizon Home Loans v. Day Dawn Crossing Homeowners Association, Case No.

7

2:15-cv-1262-JAD-NJK (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2015) (Docket No. 19)

8

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

9

no later than April 26, 2016, an amended joint proposed discovery plan submitted in compliance with Local

10

Rule 26-1(e)(1).

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: April 19, 2016

13
14

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2