MY HOME NOW, LLC v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 2:14-cv-01957-RFB-CWH. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150112892
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (doc. # 10). The Court has reviewed the parties' discovery plan and finds it does not comply with Local Rule ("LR") 26-1 . Absent a court order, "discovery periods longer than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the first defendant answers or appears will require special scheduling review." LR 26-1(e)(1). Additionally, parties that request a discover
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (doc. # 10). The Court has reviewed the parties' discovery plan and finds it does not comply with Local Rule ("LR") 26-1 . Absent a court order, "discovery periods longer than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the first defendant answers or appears will require special scheduling review." LR 26-1(e)(1). Additionally, parties that request a discovery..
More
ORDER
C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (doc. # 10).
The Court has reviewed the parties' discovery plan and finds it does not comply with Local Rule ("LR") 26-1 . Absent a court order, "discovery periods longer than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the first defendant answers or appears will require special scheduling review." LR 26-1(e)(1). Additionally, parties that request a discovery period that is longer or different must state on the face of their discovery plan, in bold type, that it is "SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(e)" and "SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED." LR 26-1(d). Parties must also provide "a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case." LR 26-1(d).
Here, the parties fail to comply with the discovery plan format, and request approximately 270 days to complete discovery without providing any reasons why the extended discovery period is necessary.
Accordingly, the parties' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (doc. # 10) is denied.
Source: Leagle
