MMC Contractors West, Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Company et al
Filing
30
ORDER Denying without prejudice 29 Revised discovery plan. Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order due by 2/21/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
MMC CONTRACTORS WEST, INC.,
12
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
13
Pending before the Court is the parties’ revised proposed discovery plan (Docket No. 29),
14
which is hereby DENIED. This Court previously denied the parties’ original proposed discovery
15
plan because it failed to comply with the Local Rules. See Docket No. 25. As the Court advised the
16
parties at that time, the presumptive discovery period is 180 days from the date the first defendant
17
answered in this case. See Local Rule 26-1(e)(1). The pending discovery plan seeks a discovery
18
period of 180 days from the date of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) meeting, which is approximately 30
19
days after the date the answer was filed in this case. See Docket No. 29 at 4; see also id. at 2
20
(providing date answer was filed). Hence, the parties seek a discovery period 30 days beyond the
21
presumptive period.
8
9
10
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING
COMPANY, et al.,
11
Defendants.
22
Case No. 2:12-cv-02131-MMD-NJK
ORDER DENYING PROPOSED
DISCOVERY PLAN (Docket No. 29)
Parties are free to request discovery periods longer than that provided by Local Rule 26-1(e),
23
but when they do so (as here) they are required to indicate on the face of their proposed discovery
24
plan that special scheduling review is requested. See Local Rule 26-1(d). The parties’ revised
25
proposed discovery plan does not provide such an indication. Instead, it indicates that it is
26
“SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(e).” Docket No. 29 at 1 (emphasis in
27
original). Such a statement is reserved for instances where the discovery plan does not seek longer
28
deadlines than those provided in Local Rule 26-1(e). See Local Rule 26-1(d).
1
As the pending revised discovery plan neither seeks a discovery period of 180 days from the
2
date the first defendant answered nor provides on its face that the parties seek special scheduling
3
review, it is DENIED without prejudice for failing to comply with the Local Rules. Counsel are
4
directed to consult the Local Rules and once again refile a proposed discovery plan no later than
5
February 21, 2013.1 The parties are free to request deadlines longer than those provided for in Local
6
Rule 26-1(e), but must do so in compliance with the procedures outlined in the Local Rules.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
DATED this 19th day of February, 2013.
9
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
26
27
The Court expects all parties to strictly comply with the Local Rules. The Local Rules are
clear on the date the presumptive 180-day discovery period begins, as was the Court’s previous order
denying the first proposed discovery plan. See Docket No. 25 (“The presumptive discovery period is
180 days from the date the first defendant answers.”).
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?
