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)

Download PDF
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

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?