Diamond Resorts Corporation v. Brown, 2:19-cv-00227-APG-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190522d36
Visitors: 10
Filed: May 21, 2019
Latest Update: May 21, 2019
Summary: Order [Docket No. 48] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a stipulation to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants' motions to dismiss. Docket No. 48; see also Docket Nos. 31, 33 (motions to dismiss). 1 For good cause shown, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED and discovery will be STAYED until August 19, 2019. Any request to extend that date must be filed by August 5, 2019. Absent an extension granted, a proposed discovery plan must be filed
Summary: Order [Docket No. 48] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is a stipulation to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants' motions to dismiss. Docket No. 48; see also Docket Nos. 31, 33 (motions to dismiss). 1 For good cause shown, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED and discovery will be STAYED until August 19, 2019. Any request to extend that date must be filed by August 5, 2019. Absent an extension granted, a proposed discovery plan must be filed b..
More
Order
[Docket No. 48]
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is a stipulation to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants' motions to dismiss. Docket No. 48; see also Docket Nos. 31, 33 (motions to dismiss).1 For good cause shown, the motion to stay discovery is GRANTED and discovery will be STAYED until August 19, 2019. Any request to extend that date must be filed by August 5, 2019. Absent an extension granted, a proposed discovery plan must be filed by August 26, 2019. In the event the motions to dismiss are resolved before August 19, 2019, and the case is not terminated as a result, a proposed discovery plan shall be within 14 days of the resolution of the motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The stipulation also references Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The pendency of the motion for preliminary injunction does not justify a delay to discovery. Cf. Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013) (discussing requirement that pending motion be potentially dispositive).
Source: Leagle
