Rule 16.Pretrial conferences; scheduling; management
Group III: Pleadings and Motions · Last amended March 1, 2019 · Last verified July 14, 2026
Full Text of Rule 16
Notes
Drafter’s Note, Amendment Effective January 1, 2005: 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. NRCP 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.
Advisory Committee Note — 2019 Amendment: Subsection (a). 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, Rule16(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.
Amendment History
Amended 7-1-87, eff. 1-1-88; Amended eff. 1-1-05; Amended eff. 3-1-19.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 16 hands the court a set of management tools meant to keep a case moving instead of drifting. It can call the attorneys and any self-represented parties together for pretrial conferences aimed at narrowing issues, cutting wasted effort, and pushing toward settlement. The centerpiece is the scheduling order, which the court must issue after the parties file their case conference report under Rule 16.1, setting outer limits on joining parties, amending pleadings, finishing discovery, and filing motions. That order can be changed later, but only for good cause.
At any pretrial conference the court can take up a long list of matters — simplifying claims, ruling on evidence in advance, referring disputes to a discovery commissioner or master, setting time limits for trial, or adopting special procedures for an unusually complicated case. Whatever the court decides gets written into a pretrial order that controls the rest of the case unless later modified. A final pretrial conference, held close to trial, produces an order that can only be changed afterward to prevent manifest injustice — a much higher bar than modifying an earlier scheduling order. And if a party or attorney skips a conference, shows up unprepared, or ignores a pretrial order, the rule requires the court to make the noncompliant side pay the other side’s reasonable expenses unless the failure was substantially justified.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a scheduling order and when must the court issue one?
It’s an order setting deadlines to join parties, amend pleadings, finish discovery, and file motions. The court must issue it within 60 days after the Rule 16.1 case conference report is filed or waived, absent good cause for delay.
What topics can a judge cover at a pretrial conference?
A wide range — narrowing the issues, ruling on evidence in advance, discussing settlement, referring discovery disputes to a commissioner, setting trial dates, and adopting special procedures for a complex case, among others.
Does a pretrial order bind the parties for the rest of the case?
Yes. The order controls how the case proceeds unless the court later modifies it.
How is the final pretrial order different from earlier pretrial orders?
It sets the trial plan close to the start of trial, and afterward the court may modify it only to prevent manifest injustice — a stricter standard than for earlier scheduling changes.
What happens if a party doesn’t show up or isn’t prepared for a pretrial conference?
The court may issue any just order, including discovery sanctions, and must order the noncompliant party or attorney to pay the other side’s reasonable expenses unless the failure was substantially justified.