Brown v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc.

D. Nevada

Brown v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc.

DecidedAugust 5, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00972

StatusUnknown

This text of Brown v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. (Brown v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, 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

Brown v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brown v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-zeltiq-aesthetics-inc-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack