Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-01919-KJD-NJK
11-03-2016
FELICIA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff(s), v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant(s).
ORDER (Docket No. 21)
Pending before the Court is a stipulation regarding parameters for Plaintiff's examination performed under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 21. Discovery is meant to proceed with limited involvement of the Court. Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)). To that end, the rules specifically allow parties to stipulate to the parameters of discovery without court approval, except when stipulations interfere with deadlines established by the Court, hearings, or trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b). Because it does not appear on its face that the pending stipulation impacts any deadline, hearing, or trial, the pending stipulation is DENIED as unnecessary.
The pending stipulation appears to be a form used by counsel in state court proceedings, see Docket No. 21 at 1 (referring to "NRCP 35"), and is in some ways inapplicable to federal court proceedings, see id. at 2 (referring to existence and availability of a Discovery Commissioner). In other ways, the stipulation is inconsistent with the applicable rules of this Court. Compare id. at 3 (giving the moving party discretion to present any dispute arising out of the IME to either the assigned magistrate judge or district judge) with Local Rule 26-7(a) (discovery disputes are generally referred to the magistrate judge assigned to the case). To the extent any dispute arises out of the IME, that dispute must be presented to the Court in accordance with the applicable Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. --------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 3, 2016
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge