ORDER

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Keith Alan Lasko's Motion for Discovery with Interrogatories and Request for Documents, Docket No. 108.1

I. DISCUSSION

A party "may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d); see also, e.g., First Option Mortg. LLC v. Tabbert, 2012 WL 1669430, at *1 (D. Nev. May 11, 2012). Upon a showing of good cause, a court may permit expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference. Id. Good cause exists "where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration for the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party." Id. (quoting American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2009)).

There is no record of the parties having conferred as required by Rule 26(f). Plaintiff, therefore, may not seek discovery from any source.2 Moreover, Plaintiff's Motion fails to set forth any reason, much less good cause, for the Court to order discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference. Absent any stipulation between the parties allowing for discovery, the Court must accordingly deny Plaintiff's Motion to seek discovery at this juncture.

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery with Interrogatories and Request for Documents is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must submit either a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order in compliance with the Local and Federal Rules, or a request to stay discovery, citing the proper standards, no later than May 12, 2014.