Lauren v. Montana State University et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 54 Motion for independent forensic exam; denying 55 Motion for leave to amend; denying 56 Motion for leave to amend Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch on 5/24/2018. (TCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
JEAN PAUL LAUREN,
CV 17-62-BU-BMM-JCL
Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY,
CRUZADO, JOHN PAXTON, and
BRENDA YORK,
Defendants.

Before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff Jean Paul Lauren,
appearing pro so in this action. In his first motion, he requests the Court allow him,
at his own expense, to engage an independent forensic examiner to conduct an
electronic search of Defendants’ emails. For the reasons discussed, the motion is
properly denied.
Lauren has available to him the discovery procedures prescribed in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which will allow him to seek discovery of emails.
Specifically, for example, he may obtain deposition testimony from witnesses as
permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 and 31, he may submit interrogatories to parties
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, and he may make requests for production under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34. And if, upon Lauren’s review of Defendants’ responses to his discovery
1

requests, he find the responses are improper or insufficient in violation of the rules
of discovery, then he has specific remedies that are available to him under other
rules of procedure such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
And as the Court informed Lauren at the hearing on May 8, 2018, any
litigant in a civil action may have legally appropriate reasons for withholding
certain materials from disclosure through the discovery process. For example,
certain materials, i.e. emails and other documents, may be protected against
discovery due to the existence of the attorney-client privilege, or based on the
attorney work product doctrine. Therefore, as the Court told Lauren at the hearing,
a litigant is not permitted to have unrestricted, free-reign access to all of an
opposing party’s documents, emails and information. Thus, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED Lauren’s motion to allow him to conduct a forensic electronic
examination of Defendants’ emails is DENIED.
Next, Lauren filed two motions for leave to add new claims in this action.
He moves for leave to include a defamation claim against President Cruzaddo, and
he requests leave to add a claim, or claims, under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.
But, pursuant to the Court’s Order entered May 9, 2018, Lauren filed an
“Amended Complaint” on May 21, 2018, in which he alleges he is suing President
2

Cruzado for defamation, and that he is asserting claims under RICO. Therefore, in
view of Lauren’s Amended Complaint, his motions requesting leave to add his
RICO and defamation claims are moot and, accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED Lauren’s motions to amend are DENIED.
DATED this 24th day of May, 2018.

______________________________
Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge

3