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)

Download PDF
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

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?