Brown v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 MICHELE BROWN, Case No.: 2:22-cv-00972-RFB-NJK 6 Plaintiff, Order Vv. [Docket No. 24] ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 Pending before the Court is the parties’ proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 24. The 11] parties ask the Court to grant a 399-day discovery period. /d. at 2. 12 The parties submit that special scheduling should be permitted because there are pending 13] motions to remand this case to state court and to dismiss, which could limit the scope of this case 14] and address whether this Court has jurisdiction. /d. at 4. The parties essentially seek to stay their discovery obligations pending the resolution of those two motions without addressing, under the 16] proper authorities, how a stay of discovery is warranted. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 17] 294 F.R.D. 597, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 18 Accordingly, the discovery plan is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 24. An 19] amended discovery plan must be filed by August 12, 2022. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: August 5, 2022 he Nancy J. Koppe.\ 23 United States.Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27), ————_____ ' Due to the nature of the parties’ request for a stay of discovery, the Court need not address 28|| the parties’ second reason for special scheduling.