Eisenberg v. Marriott International, Inc

Filing 14

ORDER. The Court identified for the parties the governing local rules and expressly required that the discovery plan had to be filed in conformance with those rules. Docket No. 10 . The pending 12 discovery plan does not do so and is DENIED wi thout prejudice. Plaintiff's counsel is ORDERED to contact defense counsel immediately by telephone. All counsel of record must read Local Rule 26-1(a) and 26-1(b) in their entirety, word-for-word. The parties are ORDERED to file a joint discovery plan in conformance with the local rules by March 19, 2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/12/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6

COREY EISENBERG,

7

Plaintiff(s),

Case No. 2:25-cv-00208-NJK
ORDER

8

v.

9

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

[Docket No. 12]

10

Defendant(s).

11

The Court begins with an apt set of observations by the Ninth Circuit:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

We recognize that many attorneys who appear in this court rarely
practice in federal court at all or are not in the federal system by their
own choice, but, rather, were removed here by the opposing litigant.
The fact that an attorney’s federal practice is rare or infrequent,
however, is no excuse for ignoring the rules of this court. Just as an
attorney who always practices in state court is expected to know the
rules of administration and operation particular to that court, we
expect an attorney practicing law in federal court to become familiar
with and follow rules applicable to practice in this court. It is
incumbent upon an attorney practicing in [federal court] for the first
time to secure and study the Federal Rules of [Civil] Procedure and
the local rules of this [district] so that he or she will know what is
expected by the court, the form in which a case is presented, and the
consequences inherent in noncompliance. Such behavior is not only
a mark of elementary professional competence, but is common sense
to attorneys seeking to zealously represent the interests of their
clients.

21 Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale Mem. Health Sys., Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998).
22

On January 31, 2025, Defendant removed this case from state court. Docket No. 1. While

23 the proceedings here are still young, there have already been a number of stumbles. On February
24 28, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report proposing case management deadlines. Docket No.
25 9 at 3. The Court explained that, in contrast to the joint status report, the local rules outline the
26 proper procedures for presenting a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 10
27 (citing Local Rule 26-1). The Court ordered the parties to file a proposed discovery plan and
28 scheduling order in compliance with the local rules by March 11, 2025. Id.
1

On March 11, 2025, Defendant filed a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order.

1

2 Docket No. 12. This discovery plan violates the local rules in many ways. The most significant
3 problem is that the discovery plan is not presented in joint fashion. But see Local Rule 26-1(a)
4 (“the parties must submit a stipulated discovery plan” (emphasis added)). The Court has been
5 given no reason of any kind why this discovery plan was filed in unilateral fashion or why Plaintiff
6 chose to violate the Court’s order that the parties must file a discovery plan by March 11, 2025.
7 Defendant’s proposed discovery plan is otherwise detached from the specific requirements in the
8 local rules in numerous ways, including, inter alia, that it does not state in the caption that special
9 scheduling review is being requested, it does not state the date on which Defendant answered or
10 otherwise first appeared, it does not state the number of days for discovery that is being requested,
11 it provides the same deadline for amendment as for initial experts, and it provides expert deadlines
12 that depart from the timeframe envisioned by the local rules.1
The Court identified for the parties the governing local rules and expressly required that

13

14 the discovery plan had to be filed in conformance with those rules. Docket No. 10. The pending
15 discovery plan does not do so and is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to contact defense counsel immediately by telephone.

16

17 All counsel of record must read Local Rule 26-1(a) and 26-1(b) in their entirety, word-for-word.2
18 The parties are ORDERED to file a joint discovery plan in conformance with the local rules by
19 March 19, 2025.
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: March 12, 2025
______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27

1

plan.

The Court does not attempt to catalogue all of the deficiencies in the pending discovery

2
These local rules require compliance with Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
28 Procedure. Counsel must ensure that they are familiar with all requirements embodied in that rule.

2