Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Edwards v. Lattimer, 2:18-cv-01072-JCM-NJK. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180716b19 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 10) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 10. The joint proposed discovery plan is defective for several reasons. First, the parties erroneously filed it as a joint status report. Second, it does not include the required statement that the parties have met and conferred about the possibility of using alternative dispute-resolution processes, pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b)
More

ORDER

(Docket No. 10)

Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 10. The joint proposed discovery plan is defective for several reasons. First, the parties erroneously filed it as a joint status report. Second, it does not include the required statement that the parties have met and conferred about the possibility of using alternative dispute-resolution processes, pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b)(7). The joint proposed discovery plan also does not include the required statement that the parties have considered consent to trial by a magistrate judge, pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b)(8). Third, many of the deadlines are miscalculated.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties' joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 10. A renewed joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order shall be filed no later than July 18, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer