1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, 6 Case No. 2:25-cv-01651-APG-NJK Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 38] BLACKBRIAR PROTECTIVE SERVICES, 9 LLC, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Pending before the Court is a joint discovery plan and scheduling order, submitted without 12 the involvement and agreement of all parties. Docket No. 38. 13 The discovery process is meant to be a cooperative endeavor, see Cardoza v. Bloomin' 14 Brands, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2015), and is subject to an overriding limitation 15 of good faith, Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1981). Those same 16 requirements apply to the creation and submission of a joint discovery plan. See Local Rule 26- 17 1(a). Parties are expected to comply with the Local Rules and cooperate with one another to 18 create and submit a joint discovery plan and scheduling order. 19 The instant filing does not adhere to the requirement that a single discovery plan be filed 20 jointly. Docket No. 38; see also Local Rule 26-1(a). Further, Defendants Jorge Abarca and Cory 21 Nash did not participate in the “mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference.” See id. at 2; see also 22 Local Rule 26-1(a). Additionally, Defendant Nash did not sign the instant discovery plan. See 23 Docket No. 38 at 7. 24 The parties are ORDERED to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local 25 Rules in all filings with the Court. Sanctions may be imposed for failure to comply with the Local 26 Rules or any order of this court. See Local Rule IA 11-8. 27 28 ] Further, the parties are ORDERED to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference in which all 2|| parties are present and to file a joint discovery plan signed by all parties no later than December 3] 9, 2025. Accordingly, the instant filing is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 38. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: November 25, 2025

Nancy J. Koppe* 7 United States ha gistrate Judge

9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28