Williams v. Hendrix, 2:18-cv-01315-MMD-PAL. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20181023b47
Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER (Stip Ext Time — ECF No. 18 PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is the parties' Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 18) and Errata (ECF No. 19). On September 7, 2018, the undersigned entered and Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 16) when the parties failed to submit one as required by LR 26-1. In the parties' stipulation, they request 270 days instead of 180 days deemed presumptively reasonable to complete discovery, but have not comp
Summary: ORDER (Stip Ext Time — ECF No. 18 PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is the parties' Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 18) and Errata (ECF No. 19). On September 7, 2018, the undersigned entered and Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 16) when the parties failed to submit one as required by LR 26-1. In the parties' stipulation, they request 270 days instead of 180 days deemed presumptively reasonable to complete discovery, but have not compl..
More
ORDER
(Stip Ext Time — ECF No. 18
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is the parties' Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 18) and Errata (ECF No. 19).
On September 7, 2018, the undersigned entered and Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 16) when the parties failed to submit one as required by LR 26-1. In the parties' stipulation, they request 270 days instead of 180 days deemed presumptively reasonable to complete discovery, but have not complied with LR 26-1(a) which states in part:
If longer deadlines are proposed, the plan must state on its face `SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.' Plans requesting special scheduling review must include, in addition to the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(b), a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case or, in cases in which the parties disagree on the form or contents of the discovery plan, a statement of each party's position on each point in dispute."
The parties have provided no reason at all why more time than deemed presumptively reasonable is required. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Stipulation and Order to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 18) is DENIED and the deadlines established in the court's Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 16) apply.
Source: Leagle
