Dean v. Gage County, Nebraska, et al

Filing 223

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying (209) Order on Appeal to Magistrate Judge Order in case 4:09-cv-03144-RGK-CRZ; denying (219) Order on Appeal to Magistrate Judge Order in case 4:09-cv-03145-RGK-CRZ; denying (208) Order on Appeal to Magistrate Judge Or der in case 4:09-cv-03146-RGK-CRZ; denying (209) Order on Appeal to Magistrate Judge Order in case 4:09-cv-03147-RGK-CRZ; denying (206) Order on Appeal to Magistrate Judge Order in case 4:09-cv-03148-RGK-CRZ; denying (73) Order on Appeal to Magistrate Judge Order in case 4:11-cv-03099-RGK-CRZ. The Magistrate Judge's order entered on September 12, 2013 is sustained and shall not be disturbed. Member Cases: 4:09-cv-03144-RGK-CRZ et al.Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (ADB, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
RICHARD T. SMITH, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
LOIS P. WHITE, as Personal
)
Representative of the Estate of
)
Joseph White, deceased,
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
COUNTY OF GAGE, NEBRASKA, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
KATHLEEN A. GONZALEZ,
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
RICHARD T. SMITH, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
THOMAS W. WINSLOW,
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
RICHARD T. SMITH, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
ADA JOANN TAYLOR,
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
RICHARD T. SMITH, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
DEBRA SHELDEN,
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
COUNTY OF GAGE, NEBRASKA, et al., )
)
Defendants.
JAMES L. DEAN,

4:09CV3144

4:09CV3145

4:09CV3146

4:09CV3147

4:09CV3148

4:11CV3099

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendants appeal from a portion of an order that was entered by Magistrate Judge
Cheryl R. Zwart on September 12, 2013 (filing 199). Defendants object to the order only

insofar as Judge Zwart overruled their objections to Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for
admissions and required them to admit or deny the requests within 10 days.1
Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for admission generally concern the results of DNA
testing that was performed in 2008. Defendants objected that the requests are not relevant
to any claim or defense (concerning their alleged misconduct between 1985 and 1989) and
are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
After careful review conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a), and NECivR 72.2, I find that the challenged order is not clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ statement of objections (filing 209) is denied.

2.

The Magistrate Judge’s order entered on September 12, 2013 (filing 199), is
sustained and shall not be disturbed.

October 17, 2013.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

1

The response deadline subsequently was continued until 10 days following the
disposition of this appeal. See text order entered on September 30, 2013 (filing 214).
2