Lopez v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC et al

Filing 194

ORDER granting 189 Motion to Compel and striking 190 hearing on motion. (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung on 8/20/2018. (EB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Anastacio Lemus Lopez,

Case No. 17-cv-1179 (PAM/TNL)

Plaintiff,
v.
Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC, et al.,
Defendants,
and

ORDER

SMG,
Cross-Claim Plaintiff,
v.
City of Minneapolis, and
Monterrey Security Consultants, Inc.,
Cross-Claim Defendants.

Michael S. Martinez, Martinez Hsu, P.C., 4001 Airport Freeway, Suite 150, Bedford, TX
76021; and Michael Nadimi, The Nadimi Law Group LLC, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite
900, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for Plaintiff); and
Heather Passe Robertson, Ivan M. Ludmer, and Sara J. Lathrop, Assistant City Attorneys,
Minneapolis City Attorney’s Office, 350 South Fifth Street, Room 210, Minneapolis, MN
55415 (for Defendants Janee Harteau, City of Minneapolis, Russell Cragin, Anthony
Rodin, Michael Grahn, Stephen McCarty, Gerald Moore, and Michael Angelo Fossum).

This matter comes before the undersigned on the Motion to Compel (ECF No.
189) of Defendants Janee Harteau, City of Minneapolis, Russell Cragin, Anthony Rodin,
Michael Grahn, Stephen McCarty, Gerald Moore, and Michael Angelo Fossum
1

(collectively, “City Defendants”). Plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion.
On June 20, 2018, the Court issued a Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order
(ECF No. 182). The Court found “good cause for a limited extension of the pretrial
deadlines in this matter” and Plaintiff’s counsel were “both strongly cautioned that the
Court w[ould] not look favorably on future extension requests.” (ECF No. 182 at 3.) Per
the Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, fact discovery is to be completed by
September 1, 2018.
Based upon the City Defendants’ arguments, and all of the files, records and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the City Defendants’ Motion to
Compel (ECF No. 189) is GRANTED as follows:
1. Within three days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall provide address
and contact information for Kayla and Kevin Herrera, individuals who
accompanied Plaintiff to the Minnesota Vikings game where the alleged events
occurred. 1
2. Within seven days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce:
a. Two years of his paystubs preceding December 1, 2016.
b. Complete and unredacted purchase information related to Plaintiff’s
production marked Amended Production000001-02. 2
c. Medical invoices for all damage claims asserted in this action.

1

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i).
See, e.g., Burris v. Versa Prods., Inc., No. 07-cv-3938 (JRT/JJK), 2013 WL 608742, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 19,
2013) (“The practice of redacting for nonresponsiveness or irrelevance finds no explicit support in the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and the only bases for prohibiting a party from seeing a portion of a document in the Rules are
claims of privilege or work-product protection.”); Bartholomew v. Avalon Capital Grp., Inc., 278 F.R.D. 441, 452
(D. Minn. 2011) (“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not grant parties the power to unilaterally redact
information on the basis of relevance.”).
2

2

d. Full responses, without objection, to the “Requests for Production of
Documents by City of Minneapolis Defendants, Set II,” served by the City
Defendants on May 1, 2018, over two months ago. 3
3. Plaintiff shall pay the City Defendants’ costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred
in making the motion to compel. 4 Counsel for the City Defendants submitted a
declaration in support of the motion to compel, stating that “the minimum cost
[they] have incurred is $2,965, plus other costs and expenses including filing
fees.” (ECF No. 191 at 3.) First, there has been no objection. Second, a total of
$2,965 is reasonable for attorney fees, costs, expenses, and the like incurred in
connection with this motion. Therefore, Plaintiff shall pay $2,965 to the City
Defendants.
4. The motion hearing scheduled for August 22, 2018 (ECF No. 190), is
STRICKEN from this Court’s calendar.
5. All prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect.
6. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior consistent
Order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or the
party such counsel represents to any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions and
the like, including without limitation: assessment of costs, fines and attorneys’
fees and disbursements; waiver of rights to object; exclusion or limitation of
witnesses, testimony, exhibits and other evidence; striking of pleadings; complete
or partial dismissal with prejudice; entry of whole or partial default judgment;
and/or any other relief that this Court may from time to time deem appropriate.

Date: August

20 , 2018

s/ Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota

Lopez v. Minnesota Vikings Football
Club, LLC et al.
Case No. 17-cv-1179 (PAM/TNL)

3
4

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A) (requiring a party to respond within 30 days after being served with a request).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).

3