Hooks v. Bannister et al

Filing 65

ORDER DENYING without prejudice # 61 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 3/18/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

JERRY HOOKS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRUCE BANNISTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
________________________________________)

3:12-cv-00682-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
March 18, 2014

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “F.R.CV.P. Rule 26 Motion for Discovery.” (Doc. # 61.)
Therein, plaintiff seeks this court to enter an “order and acknowledgment of Plaintiff’s (Hooks)
Interest in Formal Discovery Process.” (Id.) However, Defendants have not answered Plaintiff’s
Complaint. Defendants’ answer or other responsive pleading is not due until April 19, 2014. (Doc.
# 50 at 5.) A scheduling order which allows discovery to commence will issue after Defendants
answer Plaintiff’s Complaint. L.R. 16-1(b). Therefore, discovery (or a “motion for discovery”) is
premature.
Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. # 61) is therefore DENIED without prejudice. As stated above,
a scheduling order will be issued if Defendants answer or if good cause otherwise appears that
discovery should proceed herein. L.R. 16.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk