1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 DELIADEM THOMPSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-00847-CDS-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Scheduling Order 9 v. [Docket No. 8] 10 FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., 11 Defendant(s). 12 Pending before the Court is a joint discovery plan seeking special scheduling review. 13 Docket No. 8. The scheduling conference set on this matter is VACATED. See Local Rule 78-1. 14 The presumptively reasonable discovery period is 180 days measured from a defendant’s 15 first appearance. Local Rule 26-1(b)(1). The parties here ask for more than double the default 16 discovery period. See Docket No. 8 at 2 (asking for a discovery period of one year measured from 17 the Rule 26(f) conference, as opposed to being measured from the defendant’s first appearance). 18 Plaintiff alleges negligence arising out of a piece of luggage falling onto her upon the opening of 19 the overhead compartment of an airplane. See Docket No. 1-2 at ¶ 7. The discovery plan indicates 20 that Plaintiff is continuing medical treatment and that the parties will be prejudiced if expert 21 opinions are rendered before medical treatment concludes. Docket No. 8 at 2. There are at least 22 two problems with the parties’ position.1 First, the discovery plan provides no details of any kind 23 regarding Plaintiff’s medical treatment, including the timeframe being contemplated. The request 24 to double the discovery period appears to be speculative. Second, many personal injury cases 25 involve ongoing medical treatment. The Court cannot hold discovery open ad infinitum in these 26 1 The Court notes at the outset that the caption of the discovery plan suggests that Plaintiff 27 brings this case as a class action. See Docket No. 8 at 1. The actual complaint and answer, however, are not drafted as such. See Docket Nos. 7-1, 1-2. The Court assumes for purposes of 28 this order that the class action reference was made in the discovery plan in error. 1} cases based on that circumstance; at some point, expert opinions must be rendered as to completed medical care and as to future medical care. In short, sufficient justification has not been presented 3] to more than double the presumptively reasonable discovery period. 4 Given the circumstances presented, the Court will provide the parties an extra 30 days in 5] setting the case management deadlines. If the deadlines set herein cannot be met despite the 6] exercise of diligence, the parties may seek an extension. See Local Rule 26-3. Any such extension 7|| request must detail the reasons why the subject deadline(s) could not be met through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). 9| If such a request is filed, the Court will determine at that time whether to extend the case 10] management deadlines. 11 Accordingly, the discovery plan is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Case 12] management deadlines are SET as follows: 13 e Initial disclosures: June 4, 2025 14 e Amend pleadings/ add parties: September 12, 2025 15 e Initial experts: October 13, 2025 16 e Rebuttal experts: November 12, 2025 17 e Discovery cutoff: December 11, 2025 18 e Dispositive motions: January 12, 2026 19 e Joint proposed pretrial order: February 9, 2026, or 30 days after resolution of 20 dispositive motions 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: June 3, 2025 Nancy J. Koppe. 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28