Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. MRT Assets, LLC et al

Filing 32

ORDER. The Court hereby DENIES 31 the parties' stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. The parties shall submit, no later than 5/30/2017, a stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order that either follows the presumptively reasonable time period set forth in the Local Rules or provides sufficient reason to lengthen the discovery period in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A.,

10

Plaintiff(s),

11

vs.

12

MRT ASSETS, LLC, et al.,

13

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00705-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 31)

14
15

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

16

order. Docket No. 31. Under Local Rule 26-1(b)(1),“[u]nless the court orders otherwise, discovery

17

periods longer than 180 days from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears will

18

require special scheduling review.” Additionally, “[p]lans requesting special scheduling review must

19

include . . . a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case.”

20

Local Rule 26-1(a).

21

The parties ask the Court to grant them a 270-day discovery period because, they submit, they

22

“are engaged in a dispute about proper jurisdiction and consolidation of cases” and therefore “lost

23

valuable discovery time while determining the jurisdictional and consolidation issues surrounding

24

the case.” Docket No. 31 at 2, 4. Additionally, the parties submit that the pending petition for

25

certiorari in Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 832 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016) has

26

created an “uncertain legal landscape” that will cause them to “expound extra time waiting for the

27

resolution of the petition.” Id. at 4-5. The parties calculate their proposed discovery schedule from

28

April 13, 2017, the date on which Defendant Cheyenne Hills at Southfork Owners Association, Inc.

1

filed its answer. Id. at 2. See also Docket No. 16.

2

The mere pendency of a dispositive motion does not delay the parties’ discovery obligations.

3

Cf. Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013) (internal citation omitted).

4

The parties also fail to persuade the Court that the pending petition for certiorari in Bourne Valley

5

warrants a lengthened discovery period.1 Finally, the appropriate date from which to base the

6

discovery schedule is the date the first Defendant answered or otherwise appeared. See Local Rule

7

26-1(b)(1). In the instant case that date is April 5, 2017, the date that Defendant MRT filed its

8

motion to dismiss. Docket No. 13.

9

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the parties’ stipulated proposed discovery plan and

10

scheduling order. The parties shall submit, no later than May 30, 2017, a stipulated proposed

11

discovery plan and scheduling order that either follows the presumptively reasonable time period set

12

forth in the Local Rules or provides sufficient reason to lengthen the discovery period in this case.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: May 23, 2017.

15
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

27

The Court is aware that many judges in this District have stayed cases of this nature pending
resolution of the petition for certiorari in Bourne Valley. However, that issue is not currently before
the Court.

28

2

26