Campanelli v. Desert Sales Academy, Inc.

2:14-cv-01624 | D. Nev. | Dec 9, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-01624-RFB-NJK Document 12 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA STACIE CAMPANELLI, ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) Case No. 2:14-cv-01624-RFB-NJK vs. ) ) ORDER DENYING JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN DESERT SALES ACADEMY, INC., )

) (Docket No. 11) ) ) Defendant(s). Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order (Docket No. 11), which is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Within the stipulation, the parties state that “[d]iscovery will take the standard six (6) months, measured from January 12, 2015, the date of the Early Neutral Evaluation Session.” Id. , at 2. The parties are essentially requesting a stay of discovery, pending the resolution of the Early Neutral Evaluation Session. Such a request may be refiled, but must address the relevant standards. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green , 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013); see also Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc. , 278 F.R.D. 597" date_filed="2011-12-13" court="D. Nev." case_name="Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.">278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). But see Schlottmann v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ. , 2012 WL 3135637, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2012) (denying a request for a stay of discovery until after the conclusion of the Early Neutral Evaluation Session). “It is well-established that a party seeking a stay of discovery carries the heavy burden of making a strong showing why discovery should be stayed.” Tradebay , 278 F.R.D. 597" date_filed="2011-12-13" court="D. Nev." case_name="Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc.">278 F.R.D. at 601. The parties have failed to make the required showing for the Court to grant a stay of discovery. . . . Case 2:14-cv-01624-RFB-NJK Document 12 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 2

Furthermore, the parties’ joint discovery plan fails to include “a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case.” Local Rule 26-1(d). Local Rule 26- 1(e)(1) establishes 180 days, measured from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears, as a presumptively reasonable time to complete discovery. Where more than 180 days of discovery are sought, the proposed discovery plan must provide an explanation why the parties believe additional time is required. Local Rule 26-1(d). In this case, the parties merely state, without elaboration, that the request “is made to facilitate efforts at the Early Neutral Evaluation Session.” Docket No. 11, at 2.
The parties shall submit a revised discovery plan no later than December 16, 2014, that complies with the Local Rules. In the alternative, the parties may submit a request for stay that addresses all relevant standards, no later than December 16, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 9, 2014 NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge

- 2 -