CHRISTIANSEN v. CONSENSUS ORTHOPEDICS, INC., 2:13-cv-01320-APG-GWF. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20130827f35
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2013
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge. The Court has received the parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (#10) filed August 23, 2013. The proposed Order before the Court does not comply with the requirements of LR 26-1. LR 26-1(e)(1) sets a period of 180 days as a presumptively reasonable amount of time in which to conduct discovery. The 180 days is measured from the date the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared. Discovery plans requesting longer than 180 days fro
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge. The Court has received the parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (#10) filed August 23, 2013. The proposed Order before the Court does not comply with the requirements of LR 26-1. LR 26-1(e)(1) sets a period of 180 days as a presumptively reasonable amount of time in which to conduct discovery. The 180 days is measured from the date the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared. Discovery plans requesting longer than 180 days from..
More
ORDER
GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
The Court has received the parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (#10) filed August 23, 2013. The proposed Order before the Court does not comply with the requirements of LR 26-1. LR 26-1(e)(1) sets a period of 180 days as a presumptively reasonable amount of time in which to conduct discovery. The 180 days is measured from the date the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared. Discovery plans requesting longer than 180 days from the date the first defendant answers or appears require special scheduling review. Where such special scheduling review is requested, the plan shall state the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (#10) is denied, without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to file a revised Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order in compliance with LR 26-1(d), including any request for special scheduling review, no later than September 6, 2013. The revised discovery plan should state the reasons why a longer discovery period should be granted.
Source: Leagle
