Opinion
2:22-cv-01004-JAD-DJA
10-20-2022
DEANDRE MICHAEL HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 19), filed on October 19, 2022. The Court has reviewed the plan and finds that it does not comply with Local Rule (“LR”) 26-1. LR 26-1(a) provides that “the parties must submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order.” Plaintiff notes that Defendants' counsel refused to participate in the mandatory discovery conference proceeding arguing that proceeding with said conference would be premature while Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery is pending. But Defendants cannot unilaterally impose a de facto stay while awaiting a ruling on their motion for one. As such, the Court will order the parties to meet and confer and submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order within 14 days. To the extent the parties have a disagreement on the terms, then they are required to include “a statement of each party's position on each point in dispute” in one stipulated discovery plan. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff's one-sided discovery plan that fails to comply with LR 26-1.
Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 19) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer in accordance with Local Rule 26-1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order no later than November 3, 2022.