From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mendy v. Morrison

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Apr 10, 2023
2:22-cv-00569-APG-DJA (D. Nev. Apr. 10, 2023)

Opinion

2:22-cv-00569-APG-DJA

04-10-2023

Edward Bissau Mendy, Plaintiffs, v. James McKenzie Morrison, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

DANIEL J.ALBREGTS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In reviewing the docket in this case, it has come to the Court's attention that the parties have not filed a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Local Rule 26-1(a) requires that “[t]he pro se plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney must initiate the scheduling of the conference required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) to be held within 30 days after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears. Fourteen days after the mandatory Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) conference, the parties must submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order.” Here, Defendant Joe Kelly filed an answer (ECF No. 25) on September 28, 2022. To date, the parties have not filed a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within 14 days from the date of this order, the parties must meet and confer as defined in Local Rule IA 1-3(f) and file a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order in compliance with Local Rule 26-1.


Summaries of

Mendy v. Morrison

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Apr 10, 2023
2:22-cv-00569-APG-DJA (D. Nev. Apr. 10, 2023)
Case details for

Mendy v. Morrison

Case Details

Full title:Edward Bissau Mendy, Plaintiffs, v. James McKenzie Morrison, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Apr 10, 2023

Citations

2:22-cv-00569-APG-DJA (D. Nev. Apr. 10, 2023)