Ortiz v. Pacific Union Financial
ORDER re 24 . Accordingly, the parties' 24 stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, is hereby Denied. The parties shall submit a stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order that complies with the Local Rules, no later than April 19, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 04/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling
order. Docket No. 24. The parties request a discovery period that is approximately 60 days longer
than the presumptively reasonable period set forth in Local Rule 26-(b)(1) because of a pending
motion to dismiss. Id. at 4. The mere pendency of a dispositive motion does not delay the parties’
discovery obligations. Cf. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).
PACIFIC UNION FINANCIAL,
Accordingly, the parties’ stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, Docket
No. 24, is hereby DENIED. The parties shall submit a stipulated proposed discovery plan and
scheduling order that complies with the Local Rules, no later than April 19, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 12, 2017.
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
nited States Magistrate
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?