Soiferman v. A&R Home Care, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00861
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 STEVEN SOIFERMAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00861-GMN-NJK 7 Plaintiff, Order 8 v. [Docket No. 17] 9 A&R HOME CARE, LLC et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Pending before the Court is a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, submitted by 12 some of the parties, without the participation or agreement of Defendant A&R Home Care, LLC. 13 Docket No. 17. 14 The discovery process is meant to be a cooperative endeavor, see Cardoza v. Bloomin' 15 Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015), and is subject to an overriding limitation 16 of good faith, Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981). Those same 17 requirements apply to the creation and submission of a joint discovery plan. See Local Rule 26- 18 1(a). Parties are expected to comply with the Local Rules and cooperate with one another to 19 create and submit a joint discovery plan and scheduling order. 20 Local Rule 26-1(a) states: Fourteen days after the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, 21 the parties must submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling 22 order. The plan must be formatted to permit the plan, once the court approves it, to become the scheduling order required by Fed. R. Civ. 23 P. 16(b). If the plan sets deadlines within those specified in LR 26- 1(b), the plan must state on its face in bold type, “SUBMITTED IN 24 COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(b).” If longer deadlines are 25 proposed, the plan must state on its face “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.” Plans requesting special scheduling 26 review must include, in addition to the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(b), a statement of the reasons why 27 longer or different time periods should apply to the case or, in cases 28 in which the parties disagree on the form or contents of the discovery plan, a statement of each party’s position on each point in dispute. ] The instant filing does not adhere to the requirement that the discovery plan be filed jointly. 2|| Docket No. 17. Counsel for Defendant A&R Home Care, LLC has failed to participate in the Rule 3] 26(f) scheduling conference and has further failed to join in the submission of the instant filing. 4] See id. at 2,3, 7. The proposed discovery plan and scheduling order also fails to state on its face, 5] “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED” and to provide a sufficient statement of 6|| reasons why longer time periods from those provided in LR 26-1(b) should apply to this case. 7|| Docket No. 17. 8 Additionally, Local Rule 26-1(b)(10) requires that all discovery plans “must include on the 9| last page of the plan the words ‘IT IS SO ORDERED?’ with a date and signature block for the judge 10] in the manner set forth in LR JA 6-2.” The proposed discovery plan and scheduling order fails to 11] adhere to this local rule as well. See Docket No. 17 at 7. 12 The parties are instructed to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local 13] Rules in all filings with the Court. Sanctions may be imposed for failure to comply with the Local Rules or any order of this court. See Local Rule IA 11-8. 15 All parties, including Defendant A&R Home Care, LLC, must engage in a Rule 26(f) 16|| scheduling conference, no later than September 5, 2025. A joint discovery plan must be filed by 17|| September 9, 2025. Accordingly, the instant filing is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 17. 18] Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: September 2, 2025 UG 21 7 Nancy J. Koppe“% 22 United States Magistrate Judge 3

24 25 26 27 28