Brandon v. Wright Medical Technologies, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 CHERYL C. BRANDON, 9 Case No.: 2:20-cv-01422-KJD-NJK Plaintiff(s), 10 ORDER v. 11 [Docket No. 14] WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, 12 INC., 13 Defendant(s). 14 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 14. The 15 presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days measured from the date the first defendant 16 appears. Local Rule 26-1(b)(1). The parties seek special scheduling and request a discovery 17 period of twelve months following the Court’s resolution of Defendant’s pending motion to 18 dismiss and/or Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. Docket No. 14 at 1. 19 The parties’ request for special scheduling is, in fact, a request to stay discovery. A pending 20 dispositive motion, however, does not support a stay of discovery. See Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, 21 Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011). 22 Accordingly, the parties’ joint proposed discovery plan is DENIED without prejudice. 23 Docket No. 14. Either party may file a proper motion to stay discovery, citing to appropriate points 24 and authorities, no later than December 1, 2020. If no motion to stay discovery is filed, the parties 25 must file a joint proposed discovery plan, no later than December 2, 2020. To the extent special 26 scheduling review is sought therein, a specific showing must be made as to why the presumptively 27 reasonable deadlines should not apply, based on the particular circumstances of this case, and why 28 1} the dates requested are reasonable. Otherwise, the parties must include the default deadlines, 2|| properly measured from September 29, 2020. See Local Rule 26-1(b)(1). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: November 24, 2020 5 ANS □ □□ _ Nancy.J. Koppe 6 United Sta me agistrate Judge , 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28