U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mariscos El Puerto, Inc.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA OPPORTUNITY. COMMISSION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01310-JCM-NJK.

8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9] v. 10! MARISCOS EL PUERTO, INC., et al., 11 Defendant(s).

12 Pending before the Court is the parties’ proposed discovery plan. Docket No. 27. The 13] presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days. Local Rule 26-1(b)(1). The parties seek 14! to double the discovery period predicated on the bare statement that the case involves sex 15} discrimination claims with two charging parties, identified class members, and unidentified class 16] members. Docket No. 27 at 2-3. The discovery plan does not explain why those circumstances 17] warrant extra time for discovery.' Accordingly, the discovery plan is DENIED without prejudice.

18 A renewed proposed discovery plan must be filed by March 14, 2024. The renewed 19} proposed discovery plan must either seek the presumptively reasonable deadlines established in 20] the local rules or provide meaningfully developed argument why different deadlines should be set.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: March 7, 2024 Nancy J. Koppe 24 United States Magistrate Judge 26 ' The discovery plan also references that a motion to dismiss is pending, id. at 3, but the case law is well settled that the pendency of a motion to dismiss does not serve to delay the parties’ discovery obligations, e.g., Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D.Nev. 2011) (“The || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for automatic or blanket stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending”).