Maya v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA RUBEN MAYA, Case No. 2:24-cv-02388-GMN-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9] v. 10! CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., 11 Defendant(s).

12 To date, the parties have not filed a stipulated discovery plan as required by Local Rule 26- 13] 1(a). Although a motion to compel arbitration was filed, Docket No. 6, Defendant has not to date 14] filed a separate motion to stay discovery pending resolution of that motion, see Arik v. Meyers, 15} 2020 WL 515843, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Jan. 31, 2020) (identifying governing standards).! If Defendant 16] seeks a stay of discovery, a separate request with robust discussion of the governing standards 17] must be filed by March 10, 2025. If such a motion is not filed, the parties must file a joint proposed 18] discovery plan by March 17, 2025.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: March 3, 2025 2] AAS» - Ze □□ Nancy J. Koppe 22 United States Magistrate Judge 27 ' Some portions of the underlying motion practice may touch on these issues, see Docket No. 6 at 9-10, but a separate motion specific to this request for relief has not been filed, cf Local 28] Rule IC 2-2(b).