ORDER

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is the parties' proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, Docket No. 17, which is DENIED for the reasons discussed below.1

First, proposed discovery plans must state the date on which the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The discovery plan in this case refers to the answer filed on April 27, 2015, but fails to acknowledge that Defendants filed a motion to dismiss a month earlier on March 27, 2015. See Docket No. 5.

Second, proposed discovery plans must state the number of days sought for discovery calculated from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The parties failed to do so, and instead calculate the discovery period based on the filing of the answer rather than the earlier motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 17 at 2.

Third, the presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days calculated from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears. See Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). When the parties seek a longer discovery period, they must indicate "SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED" on the face of the proposed discovery plan. Local Rule 26-1(d). The parties failed to do so.2

Fourth, when a discovery period is sought that is longer than 180 days calculated from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears, the parties must provide a statement of the reason(s) why they seek a longer time period. Local Rule 26-1(d). The parties failed to do so.

For the reasons discussed more fully above, the parties' proposed discovery plan is DENIED. The parties shall file, no later than May 22, 2015, a proposed discovery plan that complies with the applicable local rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.