ADKISSON v. METROPOLITAN GROUP PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 2:13-cv-02173-JAD-NJK. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20140423c17
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is the Parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Docket No. 16). The Parties request a discovery period in excess of 180 days, but provide no reasons in support of their request. See id. at 1. Pursuant to Local Rule 26(1)(d), "if longer discovery deadlines are sought, [p]lans . . . requesting special scheduling review shall include, in addition to the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(e), a
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is the Parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Docket No. 16). The Parties request a discovery period in excess of 180 days, but provide no reasons in support of their request. See id. at 1. Pursuant to Local Rule 26(1)(d), "if longer discovery deadlines are sought, [p]lans . . . requesting special scheduling review shall include, in addition to the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(e), a s..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Docket No. 16). The Parties request a discovery period in excess of 180 days, but provide no reasons in support of their request. See id. at 1. Pursuant to Local Rule 26(1)(d), "if longer discovery deadlines are sought, [p]lans . . . requesting special scheduling review shall include, in addition to the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(e), a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case[.]" The Court hereby ORDERS the Parties and counsel to file a proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order in compliance with Local Rule 26(1)(d), no later than April 29, 2014.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court also notes that the Parties twice refer to "FRCP 26(h)" a provision which does not exist. See Docket No. 16, at 2. Inaccurate citations should be removed from any future submissions to the Court.
Source: Leagle
