Rodrigues v. Ryan et al

Filing 96

ORDER: granting Defendants Ryan and Diaz' Motion to Seal 84 ; directing the Clerk to file under seal the proposed "Exhibit 2 Attachments A-E" 86 to Defendants Ryan and Diaz' Supplemental Response 85 ; granting Defendants' Motion to Strike 87 ; striking Plaintiff's Notice Motion In Support Of Preliminary Injunction And Request For TRO 82 ; granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Deadline for Naming Expert Witnesses 81 and Defendants' Request fo r Extension of Deadline For Making Expert Disclosures 94 ; Plaintiff file his expert disclosure 60 days from the date of the Court's ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss, should any claim survive; Defendants shall file their expert disclosures 90 days from the filing of the Court' ruling, should any claim survive. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 3/11/16. (REW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Anthony L. Rodrigues,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-08141-PCT-DGC (ESW)

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff Anthony L. Rodrigues is a pro se prisoner currently confined in the

17

Arizona State Prison Complex-Corrections Corporation of America’s (“CCA”) Red Rock

18

Correctional Center (“RRCC”) in Eloy, Arizona. On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a

19

Second Amended Complaint alleging a violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

20

§ 1983. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint involves his incarceration at

21

Arizona State Prison Complex-Kingman. The Court ordered Defendants to answer Count

22

Two and dismissed all other claims.

23

answered or responded and all issues are joined. (Docs. 27, 29, 66). A fully briefed

24

Motion to Dismiss is pending. (Docs. 29, 66, 88, 90).

(Doc. 16 at 7).

All Defendants have timely

25

Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Temporary

26

Restraining Order (Docs. 21, 22) to which Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s

27

Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 26) and

28

Supplemental Response (Doc. 85). Plaintiff filed his Reply on February 25, 2016. (Doc.

1

95). Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order

2

involves his incarceration at RRCC.

3

Several motions are deemed ripe for consideration and are discussed below.

4

I. DISCUSSION

5
6
7
8
9
10

A. Defendants Ryan and Diaz’ Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Medical Records
(Doc. 84)
In Defendants’ Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 85), Defendants attach
Plaintiff’s medical records. Defendants request that the Court seal the Plaintiff’s medical
records because they contain confidential, personal information. Defendants cite the

11

Court to numerous cases which support the request. Plaintiff has not responded. For

12

good cause shown, the Court will grant the Motion to Seal.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

B. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Notice Motion in Support of
Preliminary Injunction and Request for TRO [Dkt. 82](Doc. 87)
Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s “Notice Motion In Support of Preliminary
Injunction And Request for TRO” (Doc. 82) pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(m) on the basis that
Plaintiff’s Notice is not authorized by statute, rule, or court order. Plaintiff has failed to
respond to Defendants’ Motion to Strike. The Court may deem Plaintiff’s failure to file
an answering memorandum as consent to the granting of Defendants’ Motion and dispose
of the Motion summarily. See LRCiv 7.2 (i). In addition, to the extent Plaintiff’s Notice
is an attempt to supplement his Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 21), such an attempt must be made through a

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

properly filed motion. To the extent Plaintiff’s Notice is an attempt to raise rebuttal
arguments to Defendants’ responsive briefing, the proper manner to raise such arguments
is through a reply. Therefore, for good cause shown, the Court will grant Defendants’
Motion to Strike (Doc. 87).
C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Deadline for Naming Expert Witnesses
(Doc. 81) and Defendants’ Request for Extension of Deadline For Making
Expert Disclosures (First Request) (Doc. 94)
Pending before the Court are Defendants’ fully briefed Motions to Dismiss (Docs.
-2-

1

29, 66) and Plaintiff’s fully briefed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency

2

TRO (Doc. 21). On October 23, 2015, the Court issued a scheduling order regarding

3

discovery in the case (Doc. 35). In the interests of judicial and litigant economy, the

4

parties request that extensions of time be granted to comply with the disclosure of expert

5

witnesses. For good cause shown, the Court will grant the parties’ requests.

6

II. CONCLUSION

7

For the reasons set forth herein,

8

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants Ryan and Diaz’ Motion to Seal (Doc. 84).

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to file under seal the

10

proposed “Exhibit 2 Attachments A-E” to Defendants Ryan and Diaz’ Supplemental

11

Response (Doc. 85). The proposed “Exhibit 2 Attachments A-E” is lodged under seal at

12

Doc. 86.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 87).

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff’s “Notice Motion In Support Of

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Preliminary Injunction And Request For TRO” (Doc. 82).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of
Deadline for Naming Expert Witnesses (Doc.81) and Defendants’ Request for Extension
of Deadline For Making Expert Disclosures (First Request) (Doc. 94).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file his expert disclosure 60 days
from the date of the Court’s ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss, should any claim
survive. Defendants shall file their expert disclosures 90 days from the filing of the
Court’s ruling, should any claim survive.
Dated this 11th day of March, 2016.

24
25
26
27
28

-3-