BURGESS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2:15-cv-01828-JCM-NJK. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160201951
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2016
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 20) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a discovery plan proposing a discovery period of 329 days. See Docket No. 20 at 2. 1 The presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days. See Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The parties have failed to provide sufficient explanation to allow a discovery period of nearly double the presumptively reasonable timeframe. The only reason provided is that a related arbitration is on-going, and that the arbitrat
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 20) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a discovery plan proposing a discovery period of 329 days. See Docket No. 20 at 2. 1 The presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days. See Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The parties have failed to provide sufficient explanation to allow a discovery period of nearly double the presumptively reasonable timeframe. The only reason provided is that a related arbitration is on-going, and that the arbitrati..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 20)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is a discovery plan proposing a discovery period of 329 days. See Docket No. 20 at 2.1 The presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days. See Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The parties have failed to provide sufficient explanation to allow a discovery period of nearly double the presumptively reasonable timeframe. The only reason provided is that a related arbitration is on-going, and that the arbitration may impact this case. See Docket No. 20 at 2. To the extent the parties seek to delay this case based on other proceedings, they must file a request addressing the relevant standards for such relief. See, e.g., Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979)). No showing has been made that the standards are met in this instance.
For these reasons, the discovery plan is hereby DENIED. No later than January 28, 2016, the parties shall file either a discovery plan that complies with the local rules or a proper request to stay this case pending resolution of the arbitration at issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The discovery period is calculated from the date of the first defendant's appearance, see Local Rule 26-1(e)(1), but the parties calculated their proposed discovery period from the date of their Rule 26(f) conference, see Docket No. 20 at 2.
Source: Leagle
