Krysa v. State of Nevada

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA TARAS KRYSA, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00106-JCM-NJK 12 Plaintiff(s), Order v. [Docket Nos. 22, 24] STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 15 Defendant(s).

16 Pending before the Court is Defendant UNLV’s proposed discovery plan and a joint status report. Docket Nos. 22, 24.

18 Plaintiff has declined to engage in a Rule 26(f) conference, asserting that discovery should not proceed in light of the pending motion to remand. See Docket No. 24 at 2. The pendency of a motion to remand is not generally cause to stay discovery. E.g. Anoruo v. Valley Health Sys., LLC, 2018 WL 1785866, at *3 (D. Nev. Apr. 13, 2018).1 No justification has been provided to chart a different course here. Moreover, the Court generally prefers not to enter a scheduling order when a proper Rule 26(f) conference has not occurred.

1 To the extent reasonable grounds exist to stay discovery in this case, a proper motion must be filed explaining how the governing standards are satisfied. The filing of that motion does not impact the requirements established herein to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference and file a joint proposed discovery plan.

1 Accordingly, Defendant’s proposed discovery plan is DENIED without prejudice. The parties must engage in a Rule 26(f) conference by May 1, 2020. The parties must file a joint proposed discovery plan by May 7, 2020.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: April 28, 2020 Nancy J. Koppe \, 7 United States Magistrate Judge