McIntosh v. Clark County School District et al

Filing 23

ORDER Denying 21 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. The parties shall file a discovery plan that complies with the local rules by 10/2/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
MELISSA MARIE MCINTOSH, et al.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
v.
13
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00490-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 21)

16

Pending before the Court is a discovery plan that is defective in numerous ways, Docket No. 21,

17

and is therefore DENIED. First, the discovery plan provides a deadline for initial disclosures on June

18

6, 2016, id. at 2, which predates the initiation of this case, see Docket No. 1. Second, the discovery plan

19

states that “[s]ettlement cannot be evaluated at this time.” Docket No. 21 at 3. The parties are required

20

to discuss the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case at the Rule 26(f) conference. Fed.

21

R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2). To the extent the parties have not done so, they must do so before filing a new

22

discovery plan. Third, the discovery plan misstates the deadline to seek extensions, indicating that they

23

must be filed at least 21 days before the discovery cutoff. Docket No. 21 at 4. The local rules require

24

the filing of a request to extend at least 21 days before the subject deadline to which extension is sought.

25

See Local Rule 26-4. For example, a request to extend the expert disclosure deadline filed 21 days

26

before the discovery cutoff would be untimely, as it was due at least 21 days before the expert disclosure

27
28

1

deadline.1 Fourth, the parties failed to include the certifications required by Local Rule 26-1(b)(7)-(8),

2

regarding alternative dispute resolution, the short trial program, and trial by magistrate judge. Fifth, the

3

parties failed to include the certification that they discussed presentation of evidence in electronic format

4

at trial, and any related stipulations reached. Local Rule 26-1(b)(9).

5

The parties shall file a discovery plan that complies with the local rules by October 2, 2017.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: September 28, 2017

8
9

______________________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The discovery plan suggests that the deadlines to file dispositive motions and the joint proposed
pretrial order will be extended automatically in the event the discovery cutoff is extended. See Docket No.
21 at 3. The Court declines to adopt that approach. Instead, to the extent an extension of those deadlines
is sought in conjunction with a request to extend any discovery deadline, the request must so state and
provide the calendar dates to which the parties wish to extend those deadlines. Cf. Local Rule 26-1(b)(4)
(discovery plans must provide a calendar date for deadline).
2