LUJAN v. THOMAS, 2:16-cv-02694-RFB-NJK. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170120c79
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 7. The proposed discovery plan does not contain the certifications required by Local Rule 26-1(b)(7)-(9). Additionally, the discovery cutoff is measured from the date the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared, and if the parties wish to request a longer discovery period, they must request special scheduling review. See Local Rule 2
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 7. The proposed discovery plan does not contain the certifications required by Local Rule 26-1(b)(7)-(9). Additionally, the discovery cutoff is measured from the date the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared, and if the parties wish to request a longer discovery period, they must request special scheduling review. See Local Rule 26..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 7. The proposed discovery plan does not contain the certifications required by Local Rule 26-1(b)(7)-(9). Additionally, the discovery cutoff is measured from the date the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared, and if the parties wish to request a longer discovery period, they must request special scheduling review. See Local Rule 26-1(a). Finally, the parties misstate LR 26-4.
Accordingly, the proposed discovery plan and scheduling order is hereby DENIED without prejudice. No later than January 23, 2017, the parties shall file a new proposed discovery plan and scheduling order that complies with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
