Ortiz v. Pacific Union Financial

Filing 25

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***
MIGUEL ORTIZ,

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling

16

order. Docket No. 24. The parties request a discovery period that is approximately 60 days longer

17

than the presumptively reasonable period set forth in Local Rule 26-(b)(1) because of a pending

18

motion to dismiss. Id. at 4. The mere pendency of a dispositive motion does not delay the parties’

19

discovery obligations. Cf. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).

10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
PACIFIC UNION FINANCIAL,
13
Defendant(s).

2:16-cv-00825-JCM-NJK
ORDER

20

Accordingly, the parties’ stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, Docket

21

No. 24, is hereby DENIED. The parties shall submit a stipulated proposed discovery plan and

22

scheduling order that complies with the Local Rules, no later than April 19, 2017.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: April 12, 2017.

25
26
27
28

NANCY J. KOPPE
ANCY KOPPE
P
PP
United States Magistrate Judge
nited States Magistrate
te
e
is
is r