Boggs v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 2:18-cv-00816-JCM-CWH. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180706a32
Visitors: 24
Filed: Jul. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER CARL W. HOFFMAN, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the court is the parties' joint discovery plan and scheduling order submitted in compliance with LR 26-1(e) (ECF No. 8), filed on June 25, 2018. The parties request 360 days to conduct discovery, with a proposed cut-off date of May 2, 2019. Local Rule 26-1 provides that discovery plans must include a certification that the parties "met and conferred about the possibility of using alternative dispute-resolution processes inclu
Summary: ORDER CARL W. HOFFMAN, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the court is the parties' joint discovery plan and scheduling order submitted in compliance with LR 26-1(e) (ECF No. 8), filed on June 25, 2018. The parties request 360 days to conduct discovery, with a proposed cut-off date of May 2, 2019. Local Rule 26-1 provides that discovery plans must include a certification that the parties "met and conferred about the possibility of using alternative dispute-resolution processes includ..
More
ORDER
CARL W. HOFFMAN, JR., Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the court is the parties' joint discovery plan and scheduling order submitted in compliance with LR 26-1(e) (ECF No. 8), filed on June 25, 2018. The parties request 360 days to conduct discovery, with a proposed cut-off date of May 2, 2019.
Local Rule 26-1 provides that discovery plans must include a certification that the parties "met and conferred about the possibility of using alternative dispute-resolution processes including mediation, arbitration, and if applicable, early neutral evaluation." LR 26-1(b)(7). Additionally, the parties must certify that "that they considered consent to trial by a magistrate judge. . . ." LR 26-1(b)(8). The parties' proposed plan does not provide the required certifications setting forth that they considered using the alternative dispute-resolution process and trial by a magistrate judge. Therefore, the court will deny the motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 26-1(b)(7)-(8).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties' joint discovery plain and scheduling order (ECF No. 8) is DENIED without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
