Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-02074-LRH-CWH
03-05-2013
GREGORY KELLY, Plaintiff, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (#29), filed March 4, 2013.
Plaintiff's proposed discovery plan does not comply with Local Rule 26-1(d), which requires a plaintiff to initiate the Rule 26(f) conference "within thirty (30) days after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears." The parties are required to submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order within fourteen days after the Rule 26(f) conference. LR 26-1(d). A pending dispositive motion is not, standing alone, sufficient to curtail or limit the requirement that parties participate in a Rule 26(f) conference. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600-01 (D. Nev. 2011) ("The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending."). Plaintiff is instructed to initiate the Rule 26(f) conference. The parties are reminded that the failure "to participate in good faith in developing and submitting a proposed discovery plan" may result in sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(f).
Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (#29) is denied without prejudice.
_________________________________
C.W. Hoffman , Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge