Opinion
2:22-cv-00972-RFB-NJK
08-05-2022
MICHELE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER [DOCKET NO. 24]
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is the parties' proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 24. The parties ask the Court to grant a 399-day discovery period. Id. at 2.
The parties submit that special scheduling should be permitted because there are pending motions to remand this case to state court and to dismiss, which could limit the scope of this case and address whether this Court has jurisdiction. Id. at 4. The parties essentially seek to stay their discovery obligations pending the resolution of those two motions without addressing, under the proper authorities, how a stay of discovery is warranted. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 597, 581 (D. Nev. 2013).
Due to the nature of the parties' request for a stay of discovery, the Court need not address the parties' second reason for special scheduling.
Accordingly, the discovery plan is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 24. An amended discovery plan must be filed by August 12, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.