U.S. v. Flushman, 2:15-cv-01531-JAD-NJK. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160309k10
Visitors: 35
Filed: Mar. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 17) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan (which the parties mislabeled as a Case Management Report). Docket No. 17. If a proposed discovery plan sets deadlines longer than those specified in Local Rule 26-1(e), then the plan must provide a statement of reasons why longer periods should apply in that case. Local Rule 26-1(d). Here, the parties' proposed discovery plan sets deadlines outside the periods s
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 17) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan (which the parties mislabeled as a Case Management Report). Docket No. 17. If a proposed discovery plan sets deadlines longer than those specified in Local Rule 26-1(e), then the plan must provide a statement of reasons why longer periods should apply in that case. Local Rule 26-1(d). Here, the parties' proposed discovery plan sets deadlines outside the periods sp..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 17)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan (which the parties mislabeled as a Case Management Report). Docket No. 17. If a proposed discovery plan sets deadlines longer than those specified in Local Rule 26-1(e), then the plan must provide a statement of reasons why longer periods should apply in that case. Local Rule 26-1(d). Here, the parties' proposed discovery plan sets deadlines outside the periods specified in Local Rule 26-1(e), but fails to provide a statement of reasons explaining why longer time periods are warranted.
Accordingly, the proposed discovery plan is hereby DENIED without prejudice. The parties shall file a new joint proposed discovery plan that complies in full with Local Rule 26-1 no later than March 10, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
