Doe v. United Airlines, Inc., 2:17-cv-02825-RFB-NJK. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20171212c59
Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2017
Summary: ORDER Docket No. 7 NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order requesting special scheduling. Docket No. 7. The joint proposed discovery plan contains multiple deficiencies, all of which the Court does not address herein. First, the parties request deadlines longer than the presumptively reasonable deadlines. Id. at 1. Local Rule 26-1(a) requires that a proposed discovery plan requesting longer deadlines
Summary: ORDER Docket No. 7 NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order requesting special scheduling. Docket No. 7. The joint proposed discovery plan contains multiple deficiencies, all of which the Court does not address herein. First, the parties request deadlines longer than the presumptively reasonable deadlines. Id. at 1. Local Rule 26-1(a) requires that a proposed discovery plan requesting longer deadlines "..
More
ORDER
Docket No. 7
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order requesting special scheduling. Docket No. 7. The joint proposed discovery plan contains multiple deficiencies, all of which the Court does not address herein. First, the parties request deadlines longer than the presumptively reasonable deadlines. Id. at 1. Local Rule 26-1(a) requires that a proposed discovery plan requesting longer deadlines "must state on its face `SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.'" The parties fail to abide by this requirement as well as the other requirements listed in LR 26-1(a). Second, the parties measure the discovery cut-off from the date the joint proposed discovery plan was filed, December 8, 2017, and request a discovery period beyond the presumptively reasonable discovery period. Id. Local Rule 26-1(b) dictates the presumptively reasonable discovery period and the date from which this period is measured. The parties fail to abide by this requirement as well as the other requirements listed in LR 26-1(b). Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES without prejudice the parties' joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 7. The parties shall file a renewed joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order that complies with the Court's local rules, no later than December 15, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
