LUBRITZ v. AIG CLAIMS, INC., 2:17-cv-02310-APG-NJK. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170925e37
Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2017
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 9) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a proposed discovery plan, Docket No. 9, that fails to provide the certifications required by Local Rule 26-1(b)(7)-(8) and misstates the deadline for seeking extensions established by Local Rule 26-4. 1 Accordingly, the discovery plan is DENIED and the parties shall file a discovery plan that complies with the local rules by September 28, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. FootNotes 1. Such extension request
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 9) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a proposed discovery plan, Docket No. 9, that fails to provide the certifications required by Local Rule 26-1(b)(7)-(8) and misstates the deadline for seeking extensions established by Local Rule 26-4. 1 Accordingly, the discovery plan is DENIED and the parties shall file a discovery plan that complies with the local rules by September 28, 2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. FootNotes 1. Such extension requests..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 9)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is a proposed discovery plan, Docket No. 9, that fails to provide the certifications required by Local Rule 26-1(b)(7)-(8) and misstates the deadline for seeking extensions established by Local Rule 26-4.1 Accordingly, the discovery plan is DENIED and the parties shall file a discovery plan that complies with the local rules by September 28, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Such extension requests must be filed 21 days before expiration of the subject deadline, not 21 days before the discovery cutoff. See Local Rule 26-4. For example, filing a request to extend the deadline for initial experts that is 21 days before the discovery cutoff is untimely, as the initial expert deadline would have already expired weeks earlier.
Source: Leagle
