NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. Docket No. 21. Under Local Rule 26-1(b)(1),"[u]nless the court orders otherwise, discovery periods longer than 180 days from the date the first defendant answers or otherwise appears will require special scheduling review." Additionally, "[p]lans requesting special scheduling review must include . . . a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case." Local Rule 26-1(a).
In this case, Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC ("SFR") first appeared on December 19, 2016, by filing a motion for demand for security of costs. Docket No. 7. The parties, however, calculate the deadlines in their proposed discovery plan based on the subsequent date that Defendant SFR answered Plaintiff's complaint, without explaining why longer time periods should apply to this case. Docket No. 14; Docket No. 21 at 2-3. Thus, the parties' proposed discovery plan does not comply with this Court's Local Rules.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
IT IS SO ORDERED.