KABO TOOL COMPANY v. PORAUTO INDUSTRIAL CO., 2:12-cv-01859-LDG-NJK. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20140317b97
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2014
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is the parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Docket No. 82. As an initial matter, Defendants argue that discovery in this matter should be stayed. See id. at 2-3. The Court disagrees. United States District Judge Lloyd D. George has already denied Defendants' request to stay these proceedings while they seek review in the Federal Circuit of his order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdic
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is the parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Docket No. 82. As an initial matter, Defendants argue that discovery in this matter should be stayed. See id. at 2-3. The Court disagrees. United States District Judge Lloyd D. George has already denied Defendants' request to stay these proceedings while they seek review in the Federal Circuit of his order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdict..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. Docket No. 82. As an initial matter, Defendants argue that discovery in this matter should be stayed. See id. at 2-3. The Court disagrees. United States District Judge Lloyd D. George has already denied Defendants' request to stay these proceedings while they seek review in the Federal Circuit of his order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Docket No. 75. Nor have Defendants shown that a stay of discovery is proper while their most recent motion to stay is pending. See Docket No. 79.
The parties also dispute the appropriate discovery cut-off, with Plaintiffs seeking an expedited discovery cut-off and Defendants requesting a discovery cut-off of 180 days. See Docket No. 82 at 3. The Court agrees with Defendants that a 180-day discovery period is appropriate.
The Court hereby ORDERS the parties to submit, no later than March 19, 2014, an amended discovery plan reflecting the Court's rulings above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
