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)

Download PDF
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?