Raymond v. Conine

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Steven Raymond, et al., 2:23-cv-01195-CDS-MDC Plaintiff(s), Order vs. || Zach Conine, et al., 8 Defendant(s).

10 Plaintiffs filed this case nearly one year ago. ECF No. 1. The defendants filed a motion to || dismiss on October 10, 2023, which is still pending before the Court. ECF No. 28. Consistent with the || Supreme Court's mandate that trial courts should balance fairness and cost, the Rules do not provide for || automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending. See Ske/lerup || Indus. Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 163 F.R.D. 598, 600-01 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

15 The parties never filed a discovery plan or a stipulation to stay discovery in this case.

16 IT IS ORDERED that by Monday, July 1, 2024 the parties, after meeting-and-conferring, shall || file either: 18 1. A discovery plan and scheduling order; 19 2. A stipulation to stay discovery; or 20 3. A motion to stay discovery. “p, 4 = 21 Dated this 17th day of June 2024. i . a 22 App fx 23 Y if \ rf □ 24 sen Til 25 United States Magistyate Judge