Eyerman v. United Road Towing, Inc. et al
Filing
17
ORDER that parties' Stipulation to stay all dates in this matter is denied. FURTHER ORDERED that a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order shall be submitted to the Court within ten (10) days of this order or in the alternative, a motion to stay with points and authorities shall be submitted within ten (10) days of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/7/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
PRESTON C. EYERMAN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED ROAD TOWING, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Case No. 2:12-cv-01368-RCJ-CWH
ORDER
12
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Notice to the Court of Mediation (#16),
13
filed on October 31, 2012. Although styled as a notice, the parties actually request a stay of
14
discovery pending a mediation that had was scheduled for January 18, 2013.
15
Parties seeking a stay of discovery carry “the heavy burden of making a strong showing why
16
discovery should be denied.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011)
17
(citing Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997)).
18
The Court finds that the parties have not met that heavy burden at this time. Indeed, the parties
19
failed to bring a motion to stay discovery and did not provide any points and authorities regarding
20
why a stay of discovery is warranted as required by Local Rule 7-2(c).
21
Moreover, the Court notes that Defendant filed an Answer on August 29, 2012. As a result,
22
a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order was due by October 2, 2012. The fact that the
23
parties informally postponed discovery while they engaged in settlement negotiations does not
24
excuse the failure to file a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order in accordance with Local
25
Rule 26-1. The parties are reminded that no stipulations are effective until approved by the Court,
26
and that “[a]ny stipulation that would interfere with any time set for completion of discovery, for
27
hearing of a motion, or for trial, may be made only with the approval of the Court.” Local Rule 728
1(b).
1
Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that parties’ Stipulation to stay all dates in this matter is
3
denied.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order shall
5
be submitted to the Court within ten (10) days of this order or in the alternative, a motion to stay
6
with points and authorities shall be submitted within ten (10) days of this order.
7
DATED this 7th day of February, 2013.
8
9
10
11
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
