Nev. R. Civ. P. 16

As amended through October 9, 2024

Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management

(a)Pretrial Conferences; Objectives. In any action, the court may order the attorneys and any unrepresented parties to appear for one or more pretrial conferences for such purposes as:

(1) expediting disposition of the action;

(2) establishing early and continuing control so that the case will not be protracted because of lack of management;

(3) discouraging wasteful pretrial activities;

(4) improving the quality of the trial through more thorough preparation; and

(5) facilitating settlement.

(b)Scheduling and Planning.

(1) Scheduling Order. Except in categories of actions exempted by local rule, the court must, after consulting with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties by a scheduling conference, case conference, telephone conference, or other suitable means, enter a scheduling order.

(2) Time to Issue. The court must issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable, but unless the court finds good cause for delay, the court must issue it within 60 days after:

(A) a Rule 16.1 case conference report has been filed; or

(B) the court waives the requirement of a case conference report under Rule 16.1(f).

(3)Contents of the Order.

(A) Required Contents. The scheduling order must limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.

(B)Permitted Contents. The scheduling order may:

(i) provide for disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information;

(ii) direct that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court;

(iii) set dates for pretrial conferences, a final pretrial conference, and for trial; and

(iv) include any other appropriate matters.

(4)Modifying a Schedule. A schedule may be modified by the court for good cause.

(c)Attendance and Subjects to Be Discussed at Pretrial Conferences.

(1) Attendance. A represented party must authorize at least one of its attorneys to make stipulations and admissions about all matters that can reasonably be anticipated for discussion at a pretrial conference. If appropriate, the court may require that a party or its representative be present or reasonably available by other means to consider possible settlement.

(2)Matters for Consideration. At any pretrial conference, the court may consider and take appropriate action on the following matters:

(A) formulating and simplifying the issues, and eliminating frivolous claims or defenses;

(B) amending the pleadings if necessary or desirable;

(C) obtaining admissions and stipulations about facts and documents to avoid unnecessary proof, and ruling in advance on the admissibility of evidence;

(D) avoiding unnecessary proof and cumulative evidence, and limiting the use of testimony under NRS 47.060 and NRS 50.275;

(E) determining the appropriateness and timing of summary adjudication under Rule 56;

(F) identifying witnesses and documents, scheduling the filing and exchange of any pretrial briefs, and setting dates for further conferences and for trial;

(G) referring matters to a discovery commissioner or a master;

(H) settling the case and using special procedures to assist in resolving the dispute when authorized by statute or local rule;

(I) determining the form and content of the pretrial order;

(J) disposing of pending motions;

(K) adopting special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems;

(L) ordering a separate trial under Rule 42(b) of a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, third-party claim, or particular issue;

(M) establishing a reasonable limit on the time allowed to present evidence; and

(N) facilitating in other ways the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of the action.

(d)Pretrial Orders. After any conference under this rule, the court should issue an order reciting the action taken. This order controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.

(e)Final Pretrial Conference and Orders. The court may hold a final pretrial conference to formulate a trial plan, including a plan to facilitate the admission of evidence. The conference must be held as close to the start of trial as is reasonable, and must be attended by at least one attorney who will conduct the trial for each party and by any unrepresented party. The court may modify the order issued after a final pretrial conference only to prevent manifest injustice.

(f)Sanctions.

(1)In General. On motion or on its own, the court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(1), if a party or its attorney:

(A) fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference;

(B) is substantially unprepared to participate-or does not participate in good faith-in the conference; or

(C) fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.

(2)Imposing Fees and Costs. Instead of or in addition to any other sanction, the court must order the party, its attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses-including attorney fees-incurred because of any noncompliance with this rule, unless the noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Nev. R. Civ. P. 16

Amended effective 3/1/2019.

Advisory Committee Note 2019 Amendment Rule 16 parallels FRCP 16, with some Nevada-specific variations. Except as noted, the amendments are stylistic, not substantive.

Subsection (b). Rule 16(b)(1) continues to omit the reference in FRCP 16(b)(1)(A) to FRCP 26(f). The deadline for entry of the scheduling order in Rule 16(b)(2) differs from the federal rule and is calculated from the filing of the case conference report required by Rule 16.1 rather than from the filing of the complaint. As amended, Rule 16(b) requires the district court judge to enter the scheduling order. Rule 16(b)(3)(B) omits sections (i), (ii), and (iv) from its federal counterpart and renumbers the remaining sections.

Subsection (c). Rule 16(c) conforms to the federal rule, except that Nevada has not adopted FRCP 16(c)(2)(F) and (N). The remaining sections of the rule have been renumbered.

Drafter's Note

2004 Amendment

The rule is amended to conform to the 1993 amendments to the federal rule, with some exceptions.

Application of subdivision (b) is no longer limited to cases not designated as complex litigation pursuant to Rule 16.1(f). The amendments change the deadline for entry of the scheduling order by calculating it from the filing of the case conference report required by Rule 16.1 rather than from the filing of the complaint. This provision differs from the federal rule, which provides that the scheduling order must issue within 90 days after the appearance of a defendant and within 120 days after the complaint has been served on a defendant. Paragraphs (5) and (6) of the federal rule are renumbered as paragraphs (4) and (5) in Nevada's rule. Nevada has not adopted paragraph (4) of the federal rule, added in 1993, which provides that the scheduling order may also include ''modifications of the times for disclosures under Rules 26(a) [cf. N.R.C.P. 16.1(a) ] and 26(e)(1) and of the extent of discovery to be permitted.''

The revisions to subdivision (c) expand the topics to be discussed at a pretrial conference, including pretrial review and redirection to alternative dispute resolution. The amended rule conforms to the 1993 amendments, with two exceptions. Omitted federal provisions are paragraph (6), which allows the court to take appropriate action with respect to ''the control and scheduling of discovery, including orders affecting disclosures and discovery pursuant to Rule 26 and Rules 29 through 37,'' and paragraph (14) which provides for ''an order directing a party or parties to present evidence early in the trial with respect to a manageable issue that could, on the evidence, be the basis for a judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) or a judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c).'' Paragraphs (5), (12) and (13) are new and conform to paragraphs (5), (13) and (15) respectively of the federal rule. Existing paragraphs (5) through (10) and paragraph (12) are renumbered and paragraph (11) concerning limitation of the number of experts is eliminated.

Subdivision (c) is further amended to permit the court to require that a party or its representative be present or reasonably available by telephone during the pretrial conference to consider possible settlement of the dispute.

The amendment to subdivision (f) is technical.