1

2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

8 BADIA BAYYINAH SHEPHARD, Case No. 2:25-cv-01885-APG-NJK 9 Plaintiff, Order 10 v. [Docket No. 35] 11 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 12 Defendants. 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, 14 submitted without the agreement of Defendant. Docket No. 35. 15 The discovery process is meant to be a cooperative endeavor, see Cardoza v. Bloomin' 16 Brands, Inc.,

(D. Nev. 2015), and is subject to an overriding limitation 17 of good faith, Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1981). Those same 18 requirements apply to the creation and submission of a joint discovery plan. See Local Rule 26- 19 1(a). Parties are expected to comply with the Local Rules and cooperate with one another to 20 create and submit a joint discovery plan and scheduling order. The instant filing does not adhere 21 to the requirement that the discovery plan be filed jointly. Docket No. 35. 22 The instant filing also fails to comply with Local Rule IA 10-1(a)(1) because the lines of 23 text are not consecutively numbered beginning with 1 on the left margin of each page with no more 24 than 28 lines per page. Additionally, the filing inappropriately includes discovery papers. See 25 Local Rule 26-7. 26 Accordingly, the instant filing is DENIED without prejudice. Docket No. 35. The parties 27 are ORDERED to submit a joint proposed discovery plan and scheduling order by December 27, 28 1} 2025. See Docket No. 15. The parties are ORDERED to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules in all filings with the Court. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: December 17, 2025 A. Nancy J. Koppe* 6 United States Magistrate Judge

8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28