Bang v. New Prime, Inc.

D. Nevada

Bang v. New Prime, Inc.

DecidedOctober 27, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-01428

StatusUnknown

This text of Bang v. New Prime, Inc. (Bang v. New Prime, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bang v. New Prime, Inc., (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 YOUNG TAE BANG, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01428-CDS-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), Order 10 v. [Docket No. 10] 11 JESUS ELIAS ESPINOZA, et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ second proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 10. 14 The presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days from the first appearance of a 15 defendant. Local Rule 26-1(a). The parties seek special scheduling review by asking for an 16 extraordinary 409-day discovery period, or more than double the presumptively reasonable period. 17 See Docket No. 10 at 2.1 Despite the unusual nature of this request and the second bite of the apple 18 already afforded by the Court, see Docket No. 9, the special scheduling review is supported by 19 conclusory assertions that could be made in many cases. The parties indicate that Plaintiffs allege 20 significant injuries, that expert testimony will be required, and that Rule 35 examinations are 21 expected after receiving medical records. Docket No. 10 at 2. What is missing is an explanation 22 as to why those circumstances warrant more time for discovery (i.e., why the default deadlines 23 cannot be met), let alone why those circumstances warrant the extraordinary discovery period 24 being sought. The Court declines to act as an attorney for the parties to fill in the gaps of the 25 reasoning provided. Cf. Williams v. Eastside Lumberyard & Supply Co., 190 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 26 1114 (S.D. Ill. 2001). 27 1 The discovery plan must state the “number of days required for discovery,” Local Rule 28 26-1(b)(1), but it does not do so in this case. ] Accordingly, the second proposed discovery plan is DENIED without prejudice. An 2|| amended discovery plan must be filed by October 31, 2023. This will be the final opportunity to 3] justify special scheduling review. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: October 26, 2023 le.

7 Unite Sunes Ady istrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 YOUNG TAE BANG, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01428-CDS-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), Order 10 v. [Docket No. 10] 11 JESUS ELIAS ESPINOZA, et al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ second proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 10. 14 The presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days from the first appearance of a 15 defendant. Local Rule 26-1(a). The parties seek special scheduling review by asking for an 16 extraordinary 409-day discovery period, or more than double the presumptively reasonable period. 17 See Docket No. 10 at 2.1 Despite the unusual nature of this request and the second bite of the apple 18 already afforded by the Court, see Docket No. 9, the special scheduling review is supported by 19 conclusory assertions that could be made in many cases. The parties indicate that Plaintiffs allege 20 significant injuries, that expert testimony will be required, and that Rule 35 examinations are 21 expected after receiving medical records. Docket No. 10 at 2. What is missing is an explanation 22 as to why those circumstances warrant more time for discovery (i.e., why the default deadlines 23 cannot be met), let alone why those circumstances warrant the extraordinary discovery period 24 being sought. The Court declines to act as an attorney for the parties to fill in the gaps of the 25 reasoning provided. Cf. Williams v. Eastside Lumberyard & Supply Co., 190 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 26 1114 (S.D. Ill. 2001). 27 1 The discovery plan must state the “number of days required for discovery,” Local Rule 28 26-1(b)(1), but it does not do so in this case. ] Accordingly, the second proposed discovery plan is DENIED without prejudice. An 2|| amended discovery plan must be filed by October 31, 2023. This will be the final opportunity to 3] justify special scheduling review. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: October 26, 2023 le.

7 Unite Sunes Ady istrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bang v. New Prime, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bang-v-new-prime-inc-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack