Paez v. Nutsch

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - that Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (Filing 35 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LKO)

4:20-cv-03108-RGK-PRSE Doc # 36 Filed: 01/10/22 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 121

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BENJAMIN PAEZ,

4:20CV3108

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

vs.
M. J. NUTSCH, NSP Troop E. Badge # 321,
Defendant.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel Defendant to subpoena evidence from
the Nebraska State Patrol. (Filing 35.) The motion will be denied. Defendant has no
obligation to undertake discovery on Plaintiff’s behalf.1
IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery
(Filing 35) is denied.
Dated this 10th day of January 2022.
BY THE COURT:

Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

1

Plaintiff states Defendant must prove that Plaintiff’s allegations are untrue.
This is incorrect. As the court has previously explained, “a plaintiff has the burden
of proof in a § 1983 action claiming a Fourth Amendment violation for a warrantless
search.” Paez v. Nutsch, No. 4:20CV3108, 2021 WL 2652456, at *3 (D. Neb. June
28, 2021) (citing Der v. Connolly, 666 F.3d 1120, 1127 (8th Cir. 2012)). Defendant
has the burden of producing evidence that an exception to the warrant requirement
applies, see id., but this burden of production does not mean that Defendant must
obtain evidence for Plaintiff.