NEVADA POWER COMPANY v. TRENCH FRANCE SAS, 2:15-cv-00264-JCM-NJK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150629483
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 33) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's proposed discovery plan, filed on June 18, 2015. Docket No. 33. On June 19, 2015, Defendant Trench France SAS filed an objection to the proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 34. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's proposed discovery plan (Docket No. 33) is DENIED. On June 12, 2015, the Court granted Defendant Trench France SAS's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its moti
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 33) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's proposed discovery plan, filed on June 18, 2015. Docket No. 33. On June 19, 2015, Defendant Trench France SAS filed an objection to the proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 34. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's proposed discovery plan (Docket No. 33) is DENIED. On June 12, 2015, the Court granted Defendant Trench France SAS's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motio..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 33)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's proposed discovery plan, filed on June 18, 2015. Docket No. 33. On June 19, 2015, Defendant Trench France SAS filed an objection to the proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 34. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's proposed discovery plan (Docket No. 33) is DENIED.
On June 12, 2015, the Court granted Defendant Trench France SAS's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of its motion to dismiss. Docket No. 32. Thus, as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Trench France SAS, discovery is stayed in this case. In the event that the motion to dismiss is not granted in full, the parties shall file a joint proposed discovery within 7 days of the issuance of the order resolving the motion to dismiss.1
As to Plaintiff's claims against any other defendant that may appear in this case, a proposed discovery plan may be filed once that defendant appears, pursuant to the Local Rules. See Local Rule 26-1(d). Accordingly, Plaintiff's proposed discovery plan is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court notes that Plaintiff fails to state the calendar date for the: (1) close of discovery; (2) filing of motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties; (3) disclosures concerning experts; (4) filing of dispositive motions; and (5) filing of the pretrial order. See Local Rules 26-1(e)(1)-(5). Any renewed discovery plan shall comply with the Local Rules.
Source: Leagle
