Order

(Docket No. 29)

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order seeking special scheduling review. Docket No. 29. The parties seek an extended discovery period of 270 days measured from May 18, 2018, the date United States District Court Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey held a hearing on, inter alia, Defendant's motion to dismiss, as opposed to the date the first Defendant answered or appeared, on March 12, 2018. Id. at 2; see also Local Rule 26-1(b)(1).

A discovery period longer than the presumptively reasonable discovery period of 180 days "must include . . . a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply. . . ." Local Rule 26-1(a). The parties ask for an extended discovery period "because the parties refrained from commencing discovery as they reasonably believed the District Court's decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss could significantly impact the scope of discovery in this matter." Docket No. 29 at 2. The parties further submit that an extended discovery period is warranted because of the "anticipated volume of documents that will be produced and the requisite time to review them . . ." Id.

The Court previously noted that parties may not institute a self-imposed stay on discovery. Docket No. 27. Moreover, the parties' statement regarding the volume of documents and time to review them 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. 29. The parties shall file a renewed joint proposed discovery plan no later than May 29, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.