Singh v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2:19-cv-00848-RFB-GWF. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190701c56
Visitors: 23
Filed: Jun. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on the parties Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Submitted in Compliance with LR 26-1(e) (ECF No. 8), filed June 27, 2019. The parties request a 240-day discovery period measured from the date of removal on May 17, 2019. LR 26-1(a) provides that "[i]f longer deadlines are proposed, the plan must state on its face `SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.' Plans requesting special scheduling review must include, in ad
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on the parties Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Submitted in Compliance with LR 26-1(e) (ECF No. 8), filed June 27, 2019. The parties request a 240-day discovery period measured from the date of removal on May 17, 2019. LR 26-1(a) provides that "[i]f longer deadlines are proposed, the plan must state on its face `SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.' Plans requesting special scheduling review must include, in add..
More
ORDER
GEORGE FOLEY, JR., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Submitted in Compliance with LR 26-1(e) (ECF No. 8), filed June 27, 2019. The parties request a 240-day discovery period measured from the date of removal on May 17, 2019. LR 26-1(a) provides that "[i]f longer deadlines are proposed, the plan must state on its face `SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.' Plans requesting special scheduling review must include, in addition to the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(b), a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply." The parties' proposed discovery plan requests a 240-day discovery period but fails to set forth the reasons for a discovery period in excess to 180 days. In addition, the parties' failed to state "SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED" on the face of its pleading in bold type. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order Submitted in Compliance with LR 26-1(e) (ECF No. 8) is denied, without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have until July 11, 2019 to submit a new joint discovery plan to the Court.
Source: Leagle
