Carrizzo v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2:18-cv-00114-JAD-NJK. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180305b19
Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 7) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan seeking special scheduling review. Docket No. 7. The parties seek an extended discovery period of 270 days from the date the first defendant filed its answer on January 22, 2018, based on "Plaintiff's alleged damages." Id. at 2. This statement of the reason why a longer time period should apply is vague and, therefore, insufficient under Local Rule 26-1(a) to wa
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 7) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan seeking special scheduling review. Docket No. 7. The parties seek an extended discovery period of 270 days from the date the first defendant filed its answer on January 22, 2018, based on "Plaintiff's alleged damages." Id. at 2. This statement of the reason why a longer time period should apply is vague and, therefore, insufficient under Local Rule 26-1(a) to war..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 7)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan seeking special scheduling review. Docket No. 7. The parties seek an extended discovery period of 270 days from the date the first defendant filed its answer on January 22, 2018, based on "Plaintiff's alleged damages." Id. at 2. This statement of the reason why a longer time period should apply is vague and, therefore, insufficient under Local Rule 26-1(a) to warrant an extended discovery period that is longer than the presumptively reasonable discovery period of 180 days.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties' joint proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 7. The parties shall file a renewed joint proposed discovery plan no later than March 9, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
