U.S. EX REL. BENITEZ v. GALLIANO, LLC, 2:15-cv-01688-LDG-NJK. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160413a40
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2016
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 29) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 29. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1) establishes 180 days, measured from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears, as a presumptively reasonable time to complete discovery. Where more than 180 days of discovery are sought, the proposed discovery plan must state on its face, "SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED" and provide an explanation why the
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 29) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 29. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1) establishes 180 days, measured from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears, as a presumptively reasonable time to complete discovery. Where more than 180 days of discovery are sought, the proposed discovery plan must state on its face, "SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED" and provide an explanation why the ..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 29)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' joint proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 29. Local Rule 26-1(e)(1) establishes 180 days, measured from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears, as a presumptively reasonable time to complete discovery. Where more than 180 days of discovery are sought, the proposed discovery plan must state on its face, "SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED" and provide an explanation why the parties believe additional time is required. Local Rule 26-1(d).
Here, the parties failed to measure the discovery period "from the date the first defendant appeared." Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). As a result, the parties erred in calculating the discovery date and request a period longer than 180 days. Therefore, Local Rule 26-1(e)(1) requires them to seek special scheduling review, and Local Rule 26-1(d) requires them to include a statement of reasons justifying the longer discovery period. The parties failed to do either.
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 April 15, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
