Wilson v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 2:19-cv-00055-RFB-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190424c27
Visitors: 24
Filed: Apr. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' proposed discovery plan requesting special scheduling review. Docket No. 45. Plaintiff and Defendants disagree on the appropriate schedule. Id. Plaintiff submits that a 180-day discovery period from the date Defendant Experian filed a motion to extend time to respond to the complaint is appropriate. Id. at 4; see also Docket No. 4. Defendants submit that the discovery dates should be set on a timeline c
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' proposed discovery plan requesting special scheduling review. Docket No. 45. Plaintiff and Defendants disagree on the appropriate schedule. Id. Plaintiff submits that a 180-day discovery period from the date Defendant Experian filed a motion to extend time to respond to the complaint is appropriate. Id. at 4; see also Docket No. 4. Defendants submit that the discovery dates should be set on a timeline co..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' proposed discovery plan requesting special scheduling review. Docket No. 45. Plaintiff and Defendants disagree on the appropriate schedule. Id. Plaintiff submits that a 180-day discovery period from the date Defendant Experian filed a motion to extend time to respond to the complaint is appropriate. Id. at 4; see also Docket No. 4. Defendants submit that the discovery dates should be set on a timeline consistent with Local Rule 26-1(b), but calculated from the date Defendant Trans Union filed its motion to dismiss, February 21, 2019. Docket No. 45 at 2; see also Docket No. 18.
Defendant Trans Union has reached a proposed settlement with Plaintiff. Docket No. 41. All deadlines have therefore been stayed as to this Defendant. Docket No. 42. Further, Defendant Experian has filed a motion to stay discovery, which is not yet fully briefed. Docket No. 37.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties' joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, Docket No. 45, without prejudice pending the Court's ruling on the pending motion to stay discovery. In the event the Court denies the motion to stay, the parties who remain in the case shall file a renewed joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within seven days of the issuance of the order resolving the motion to stay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
