ANDERSON v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, 2:14-cv-01201-APG-NJK. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20140915599
Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2014
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 14) NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties' Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, Docket No. 14, which is DENIED without prejudice for the reasons discussed below. First, proposed discovery plans must state the date on which the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The parties failed to do so. Second, the Local Rules provide a presumptively reasonable discovery period of 180 days measured
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 14) NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties' Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, Docket No. 14, which is DENIED without prejudice for the reasons discussed below. First, proposed discovery plans must state the date on which the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The parties failed to do so. Second, the Local Rules provide a presumptively reasonable discovery period of 180 days measured f..
More
ORDER (Docket No. 14)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, Docket No. 14, which is DENIED without prejudice for the reasons discussed below. First, proposed discovery plans must state the date on which the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The parties failed to do so. Second, the Local Rules provide a presumptively reasonable discovery period of 180 days measured from the date the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared in the case. See Local Rule 26-1(d), Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). In this case, the parties request a discovery period of 180 days from the date of the parties' Stipulated Discovery Plan. Docket No. 14, at 1. Third, where more than 180 days of discovery are sought, the proposed discovery plan must provide an explanation why the parties believe additional time is required. Local Rule 26-1(d). The parties failed to do so. For all of these reasons, the proposed discovery plan is DENIED without prejudice and the parties shall submit an amended proposed discovery plan that complies with the Local Rules no later than September 19, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
