Scarborough v. USA

Filing 23

MINUTE ORDER; Defendant's 20 Motion for Leave to Designate Out-of-Time, Nonparty at Fault is DENIED without prejudice, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/18/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00242-KLM
AARON SCARBOROUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Designate,
Out-of-Time, Nonparty at Fault [#20] (the “Motion”). Defendant seeks to designate as a
nonparty at fault the inmate who physically attacked Plaintiff while they were incarcerated
at the United States Bureau of Prisons. The law allows unknown individuals to be
designated as “John Doe” nonparties at fault in certain circumstances. See, e.g., Garza
v. The Pep Boys – Manny, Moe & Jack of Del., Inc., No. 10-cv-00365-REB-KLM, 2011 WL
486197, at *3 (D. Colo. Feb. 7, 2011) (holding that a John Doe who may have caused a car
accident could be designated as a nonparty at fault); Jenkins v. FMC Techs., Inc., No. 07cv-02110-LTB-KMT, 2008 WL 4059861, at *1 (D. Colo. Aug. 29, 2008) (stating that an
unidentified and undiscovered party could be designated as a nonparty at fault only if the
designation sets forth facts sufficient to permit the plaintiff to identify the transaction or
occurrence which led to the nonparty’s fault so that the plaintiff can prepare to address the
nonparty’s conduct). Defendant has sufficiently identified such conduct here. However,
Defendant has not provided authority for designating a nonparty at fault whose identity is
already known without providing the nonparty’s name. Here, without reference to case law,
Defendant cites only to vague “security and confidentiality concerns.” [#20-1] at 2. Without
more specific facts and citations to legal authority, the Court finds that Defendant must
provide the name of the nonparty at fault. If appropriate, Defendant may simultaneously
file a motion to restrict under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#20] is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated: June 18, 2015