Martines v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Filing
29
ORDER Denying 28 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 3/4/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/27/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
GORDON MARTINES,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN
)
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:12-cv-01441-LDG-NJK
ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY PLAN
(Docket No. 28)
16
17
18
19
Pending before the Court is the parties’ proposed joint discovery plan, Docket No. 28, which is
DENIED for the reasons discussed below.
The pendency of a motion to dismiss alone does not in itself stay discovery deadlines. See, e.g.,
20
Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011) (“The Federal Rules of Civil
21
Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive
22
motion is pending.”). Indeed, the Local Rules are written to make clear that the deadlines for the Rule
23
26(f) conference and, consequently, the filing of the proposed discovery plan are triggered when the
24
first defendant “answers or otherwise appears.” Local Rule 26-1(d) (emphasis added). Similarly the
25
presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days from the date the first defendant “answers or
26
appears.” See Local Rule 26-1(e)(1) (emphasis added).
27
28
Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss and an answer in this case on December 17, 2012.
Docket No. 12, 13. As a result (and as referenced on the docket), the stipulated discovery plan was due
1
no later than January 31, 2013. See Docket No. 12 (“Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by
2
1/31/2013”); see also Local Rule 26-1(d) (“Counsel for plaintiff shall initiate the scheduling of the Fed.
3
R. Civ. P. 26(f) meeting within thirty (30) days after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears.
4
Fourteen (14) days after the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the parties shall submit a
5
stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order”).
6
The parties failed to comply with the deadlines for holding the Rule 26(f) conference and
7
submitting their stipulated discovery plan. See Docket No. 28 (Rule 26(f) conference held on January
8
29, 2013; stipulated discovery plan filed February 26, 2013). Moreover, the parties seek a discovery
9
period of 180 days from the date of their late-held Rule 26(f) conference. See id. at 2. This is a
10
discovery period of roughly 43 days beyond the presumptively reasonable 180-day discovery period
11
calculated from the date of Defendants’ first appearance. The parties fail to provide any explanation
12
why the Court should grant an extended discovery period, as required by Local Rule 26-1(d).1
13
For the reasons discussed above, the pending stipulated discovery plan is DENIED. The parties
14
are ordered, no later than March 4, 2013, to file another proposed discovery plan that either (1) is based
15
on the 180-day discovery period outlined in Local Rule 26-1(e)(1) or (2) provides explanation why a
16
longer period should be granted.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
DATED: February 27, 2013
19
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The parties further fail to identify the date the first defendant answered or otherwise appeared,
as required by Local Rule 26-1(e)(1).
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?