Filed: Sep. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 21) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a discovery plan that is defective in numerous ways, Docket No. 21, and is therefore DENIED. First, the discovery plan provides a deadline for initial disclosures on June 6, 2016, id. at 2, which predates the initiation of this case, see Docket No. 1. Second, the discovery plan states that "[s]ettlement cannot be evaluated at this time." Docket No. 21 at 3. The parties are required to discuss the
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 21) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a discovery plan that is defective in numerous ways, Docket No. 21, and is therefore DENIED. First, the discovery plan provides a deadline for initial disclosures on June 6, 2016, id. at 2, which predates the initiation of this case, see Docket No. 1. Second, the discovery plan states that "[s]ettlement cannot be evaluated at this time." Docket No. 21 at 3. The parties are required to discuss the p..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 21)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is a discovery plan that is defective in numerous ways, Docket No. 21, and is therefore DENIED. First, the discovery plan provides a deadline for initial disclosures on June 6, 2016, id. at 2, which predates the initiation of this case, see Docket No. 1. Second, the discovery plan states that "[s]ettlement cannot be evaluated at this time." Docket No. 21 at 3. The parties are required to discuss the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case at the Rule 26(f) conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2). To the extent the parties have not done so, they must do so before filing a new discovery plan. Third, the discovery plan misstates the deadline to seek extensions, indicating that they must be filed at least 21 days before the discovery cutoff. Docket No. 21 at 4. The local rules require the filing of a request to extend at least 21 days before the subject deadline to which extension is sought. See Local Rule 26-4. For example, a request to extend the expert disclosure deadline filed 21 days before the discovery cutoff would be untimely, as it was due at least 21 days before the expert disclosure deadline.1 Fourth, the parties failed to include the certifications required by Local Rule 26-1(b)(7)-(8), regarding alternative dispute resolution, the short trial program, and trial by magistrate judge. Fifth, the parties failed to include the certification that they discussed presentation of evidence in electronic format at trial, and any related stipulations reached. Local Rule 26-1(b)(9).
The parties shall file a discovery plan that complies with the local rules by October 2, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The discovery plan suggests that the deadlines to file dispositive motions and the joint proposed pretrial order will be extended automatically in the event the discovery cutoff is extended. See Docket No. 21 at 3. The Court declines to adopt that approach. Instead, to the extent an extension of those deadlines is sought in conjunction with a request to extend any discovery deadline, the request must so state and provide the calendar dates to which the parties wish to extend those deadlines. Cf. Local Rule 26-1(b)(4) (discovery plans must provide a calendar date for deadline).
