Spencer v. Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority, 2:18-cv-02391-GMN-GWF. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190322d76
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2019
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on the parties' Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Submitted in Compliance with 26-1(b) (ECF No. 22), filed March 20, 2019. LR 26-1(a) provides that "[i]f 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 rea
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on the parties' Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Submitted in Compliance with 26-1(b) (ECF No. 22), filed March 20, 2019. LR 26-1(a) provides that "[i]f 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 reas..
More
ORDER
GEORGE FOLEY, JR., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Submitted in Compliance with 26-1(b) (ECF No. 22), filed March 20, 2019. LR 26-1(a) provides that "[i]f 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." The Defendant's proposed discovery plan requests a 240-day discovery period but fails to set forth the reasons for a discovery period in excess to 180 days. In addition, the Defendant's failed to state "SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED" on the face of its pleading in bold type. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that parties' Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Submitted in Compliance with 26-1(b) (ECF No. 22) is denied, without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
