1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Asher Associates, LLC, a Wyoming Case No. 2:25-cv-01136-APG-DJA 6 Limited Liability Corporation,

7 Plaintiff, Order

8 v.

9 Thatcher Eills, an individual; and Does 1-10, inclusive, 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the Court is the parties’ disputed discovery plan and scheduling order. (ECF No. 14 23). Plaintiff Asher Associates, LLC, proposes that the Court set a discovery plan consistent with 15 Local Rule 26-1(b). Defendant Thatcher Eills proposes that the Court either stay discovery 16 pending resolution of his motion to dismiss or that the Court only allow limited discovery for 17 sixty days before allowing the parties to proceed with discovery. The Court grants Plaintiff’s 18 proposal. 19 Defendant requests that the Court stay discovery, but does not brief the appropriate 20 standard or separately move for that relief. See Schrader v. Wynn, No. 2:19-cv-02159-JCM- 21 BNW,

(D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (outlining the good cause standard for staying 22 discovery); see Gibson v. MGM Resorts International, No. 2:23-cv-00140-MMD-DJA,

4455726 (D. Nev. July 1, 2023) (explaining that the undersigned magistrate judge has adopted the 24 Schrader v. Wynn good cause standard); see LR IC 2-2(b) (explaining that, for each type of relief 25 requested or purpose of the document, a separate document must be filed and a separate event 26 must be selected for that document). So, the Court declines to stay discovery at this stage. 27 Alternatively, Defendant asks that the Court impose phased discovery, which form of discovery 1 rule on threshold challenges with a complete evidentiary record.” (ECF No. 23 at 3). However, 2 the Court declines to impose phased or bifurcated discovery without very detailed reasoning. 3 This is because, in the Court’s experience, phased or bifurcated discovery often leads to disputes 4 over whether discovery is properly completed in phase one or phase two of discovery. The Court 5 therefore declines to approve Defendant’s proposed discovery plan. 6 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ discovery plan and scheduling order 8 (ECF No. 23) is granted in part and denied in part. It is denied in part regarding Defendant’s 9 proposed discovery plan. It is granted in part regarding Plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan and 10 the provisions to which the parties agree. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following deadlines shall govern discovery: 12 13 Initial disclosures: September 19, 2025 14 Amend pleadings/add parties: October 15, 2025 15 Expert disclosures: November 14, 2025 16 Rebuttal expert disclosures: December 15, 2025 17 Discovery cutoff: January 13, 2026 18 Dispositive motions: February 12, 2026 19 Pretrial order: March 16, 20261 20 21 DATED: September 25, 2025 22 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 1 Under Local Rule 26-1(b)(5), if dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order will be suspended until thirty days after decision on the dispositive motions or