Hudson v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc. et al

Filing 26

ORDER that 25 the parties' Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 3/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

BRIAN J. HUDSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
AD ASTRA RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00161-JAD-GWF
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order
(ECF No. 25), filed on March 27, 2017.
Discovery plans requesting longer than 180 days from the date the first defendant answers or
appears require special scheduling review. LR 26-1(a) is explicit:

17

If longer deadlines are proposed, the plan must state on its face
“SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.” Plans requesting
special scheduling review must include, in addition to the information
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(b), a statement of the
reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case ...

18
19
20

The parties discovery plan requests a 240-day discovery period but does not request special

21

scheduling review or give an adequate explanation for the longer period as required by LR 26-1(a).

22

Accordingly,

23
24
25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order
(ECF No. 25) is denied without prejudice.
DATED this 28th day of March, 2017.

26
27
28

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge