Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-01931-GMN-NJK
03-11-2013
JAMES LICKLITER, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD UNDERWIRTERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN
(Docket No. 22)
Pending before the Court is the revised proposed discovery plan (Docket No. 22), which is hereby DENIED. As the Court advised the parties previously, the presumptive discovery period is 180 days from the date the first defendant answers, or otherwise appears. See Local Rule 26-1(e)(1)(emphasis added). The pending discovery plan seeks a discovery period of 300 days from the date of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and 198 days from the rule 26(f) conference. See Docket No. 5 and Docket No. 22, respectively. Although parties may request longer discovery periods, when they do so (as here) they are required to indicate on the face of proposed discovery plan that special scheduling review is requested. See Local Rule 26-1(d). The revised proposed discovery plan does not provide such an indication.
Additionally, the stipulated discovery plan proposes that requests to extend discovery deadlines must be filed no later than 21 days prior to the close of discovery. Under LR 26-4, requests to extend deadlines must be received by the Court no later than 21 days before the expiration of the subject deadline. The parties provided no reason why the Court should make an exception to this rule.
As the pending revised discovery plan neither seeks a discovery period of 180 days from the date the first defendant answered nor provides on its face that the parties seek special scheduling review, it is DENIED without prejudice for failing to comply with the Local Rules. Counsel are directed to consult the Local Rules and once again refile a proposed discovery plan no later than March 14, 2013. The parties may request longer deadlines than those provided for in Local Rule 26-1(e), but must do so in compliance with the procedures outlined in the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge