1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 DAMEAD HOLMES, 5 Case No. 2:25-cv-00442-GMN-NJK Plaintiff, 6 Order v. 7 [Docket No. 17] THE RESHAPING AND NUTRITIONAL 8 COMPANY LLC, 9 Defendant. 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s discovery plan and scheduling order, submitted 11 without the agreement or input of Defendant. Docket No. 17. 12 The discovery process is meant to be a cooperative endeavor, see Cardoza v. Bloomin' 13 Brands, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2015), and is subject to an overriding limitation 14 of good faith, Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1981). Those same 15 requirements apply to the creation and submission of a joint discovery plan. See Local Rule 26- 16 1(a). Parties are expected to comply with the Local Rules and cooperate with one another to 17 create and submit a joint discovery plan and scheduling order. 18 Local Rule 26-1(a) states: Fourteen days after the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, 19 the parties must submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling 20 order. The plan must be formatted to permit the plan, once the court approves it, to become the scheduling order required by Fed. R. Civ.

(b). If the plan sets deadlines within those specified in LR 26- 1(b), the plan must state on its face in bold type, “SUBMITTED IN 22 COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(b).” If longer deadlines are 23 proposed, the plan must state on its face “SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED.” Plans requesting special scheduling 24 review must include, in addition to the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(b), a statement of the reasons why 25 longer or different time periods should apply to the case or, in cases 26 in which the parties disagree on the form or contents of the discovery plan, a statement of each party’s position on each point in dispute. 27 The instant filing does not adhere to the requirement that the discovery plan be filed jointly. 28 Docket No. 17. Plaintiff submits that Defendant’s counsel has not responded to attempts to contact 1}| or initiated communication regarding a Rule 26(f) scheduling conference, joint discovery plan, or 2|| this Court’s order, Docket No. 16. See Docket No. 17 at 2. Defendant must engage in a Rule 26(f) 3], scheduling conference and in the submission of a joint discovery plan pursuant to the Federal Rules 4} of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. 5 Moreover, Plaintiff's proposed discovery plan and scheduling order fails to provide a 6| sufficient statement of reasons why longer time periods from those provided in LR 26-1(b) should 7| apply to this case. Docket No. 17. Plaintiff's submission that a longer discovery period should 8|| apply due to “the nature of the claims and defenses” and the “voluminous discovery inherent in 9] this complex class action” are insufficient, without more, to justify a discovery period nearly 10] double the presumptively reasonable length. See Docket No. 17 at 3; see also LR 26-1(b)(1). 11 Additionally, Local Rule 26-1(b) outlines requirements for the form of the stipulated discovery plan. Plaintiff's proposed discovery plan and scheduling order fails to provide calendar 13] dates for the proposed deadlines, as required by LR 26-1(b)(1)-(4). Docket No. 17. 14 Defendant’s counsel is ORDERED to contact Plaintiff's counsel, no later than September 15] 10, 2025. The parties must engage in a Rule 26(f) scheduling conference, no later than September 16] 12, 2025. A joint discovery plan must be filed by September 15, 2025. Accordingly, the instant 17] filing is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 17. Failure to comply with this order may result 18] in sanctions. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: September 8, 2025 21 ZK —. 22 ited States Magis trate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28