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)

Download PDF
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

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?