LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. BERTOLIN, 2:16-cv-02028-JAD-NJK. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170501v60
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a discovery plan, Docket No. 36, which is hereby DENIED. The discovery plan identifies the wrong plaintiff. See Docket No. 36 at 1 (identifying the plaintiff as "Criminal Productions, Inc."). The discovery plan fails to state the date the first defendant appeared. Local Rule 26-1(b)(1). The discovery plan fails to state the number of days sought for discovery. Id. The discovery plan fails to provide the signature bl
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a discovery plan, Docket No. 36, which is hereby DENIED. The discovery plan identifies the wrong plaintiff. See Docket No. 36 at 1 (identifying the plaintiff as "Criminal Productions, Inc."). The discovery plan fails to state the date the first defendant appeared. Local Rule 26-1(b)(1). The discovery plan fails to state the number of days sought for discovery. Id. The discovery plan fails to provide the signature blo..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is a discovery plan, Docket No. 36, which is hereby DENIED. The discovery plan identifies the wrong plaintiff. See Docket No. 36 at 1 (identifying the plaintiff as "Criminal Productions, Inc."). The discovery plan fails to state the date the first defendant appeared. Local Rule 26-1(b)(1). The discovery plan fails to state the number of days sought for discovery. Id. The discovery plan fails to provide the signature block for Court approval, in the form required. See Local Rule 26-1(b)(10); see also Local Rule IA 6-2.1
A discovery plan that complies with the Local Rules shall be filed by May 11, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The discovery plan is also untimely. See Local Rule 26-1(a); see also Docket No. 18 (docket text). The discovery plan itself contends that the failure to comply with the applicable deadline was caused by the failure of Defendant Donald Plain to approve the plan. Docket No. 36 at 2. The Court reminds the parties and counsel that they must comply with the deadlines set by the Court and by the Local Rules. To the extent they are unable to do so, they must seek relief from the Court. Simply ignoring the deadline is not appropriate.
In light of the filing of a discovery plan, Plaintiff no longer must file the declaration ordered at Docket No. 34.
Source: Leagle
