to respond to interrogatories and requests for production are substantially similar to the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(F)(3)(B) ("A discovery plan must state the parties' views and proposals on ... when discovery should be completed[.]"); Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A) (allowing parties thirty days to respond to interrogatories and requests for production, respectively). Federal court decisions are consistent with our conclusion. In Thomas v. Pacificorp, 324 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir.2003), the court stated that "requests [for discovery] must be served at least thirty days prior to a completion of discovery deadline." Id. at 1179. Other federal cases have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Sofo v. Pan-American Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 241-42 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Chevola v. Cellco P'ship, No.
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction holding that district court did not abuse its discretion where it determined that plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend complaint after dispositive motion deadline holding that court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants a protective order where plaintiff failed to request discovery until nine days before the deadline holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified a protective order after settlement to permit public access to pretrial materials in spite of a protective order to the contrary which it viewed as having had been initially justified