McNelis et al v. Ada County et al

Filing 233

ORDER re 225 Objection filed by Brian James McNelis, and 230 Response to Objection, filed by Stephen Craig. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and e-mailed to Plaintiff at [e-mail] by (klw)) (klw). Modified on 4/23/2015 to add document missing from initial entry(klw).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

BRIAN JAMES McNELIS and LESLIE
D. WHITE,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:12-cv-00007-CWD
ORDER

v.
ADA COUNTY, GARY RANEY,
STEPHEN CRAIG, and JOSE DEL
RIO,
Defendants.

Contained within Plaintiff Brian McNelis’s objection to Defendant Stephen
Craig’s exhibit list is an objection and request for sanctions. (Dkt. 225.) McNelis
complains that Craig has used “blanket groupings” and provided insufficient detail to
describe the exhibits Defendant intends to introduce at trial. McNelis asks for sanctions in
the form of: (1) prohibiting amendment of the exhibit contents; and (2) exclusion of
certain exhibits that were described improperly.
McNelis has been provided a binder full of exhibits by Craig’s attorneys per this
Court’s order. (Dkt. 184, 230-1.) This will be the same binder lodged with the Court

ORDER - 1

unless amended in the days before trial. 1 How Craig’s attorneys wish to group documents
for presentation at trial, and to describe them on the exhibit list, are discretionary. That
the names or descriptions given to the exhibits by defense counsel are not to McNelis’s
liking is not a proper objection. McNelis’s objection is therefore frivolous, and the Court
declines to consider the basis for the objection as grounds for exclusion of the exhibits.
The objection is overruled.
Defendant has asked for sanctions in the form of attorney fees for time spent
responding to McNelis’s objection. The Court declines to award sanctions in the form of
attorney fees. However, McNelis is reminded of the Court’s inherent authority to sanction
litigants who appear before it for conduct that unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies
the proceedings, and for behavior constituting a willful abuse of the judicial process. See
28 U.S.C. § 1927; Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2001).
All remaining objections raised by the parties to each other’s exhibits and
witnesses were discussed in this Court’s Order on the motions in limine, or will be
appropriately ruled upon at trial.
April 23, 2015

1

If amended, the Court expectes McNelis will be provided with an amended exhibit list.

ORDER - 2