Joseph et al vs. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police et al

Filing 108

ORDER that plaintiffs shall have 15 days from the date of this order to file a supplement to their response to defendants' motion for summary judgment 73 . Defendants shall have 5 days from the date plaintiffs' supplemental response is filed in which to file a supplemental reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 6/10/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

RONALD NEAL JOSEPH, SR.,
et al.

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

2:09-cv-00966-HDM-LRL
ORDER

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 4,

21

2011 (#73).

22

judgment on February 25, 2011 (#85).

23

did not address the merits of the motion, but instead argued that

24

the motion was premature and requested a stay of the motion pending

25

resolution of outstanding discovery disputes.

26

stay of the motion for summary judgment (#73) until the discovery

Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion for summary
Plaintiffs’ response (#85)

The court granted a

1

disputes were resolved (#95).

2

order granting a stay of the summary judgment motion (#95), there

3

were two pending discovery motions: defendants’ Motion to Stay

4

Discovery on Plaintiffs’ Monell Claim (#75) and plaintiffs’ Motion

5

to Extend Discovery Deadlines and for Sanctions (#88).

6

10, 2011, defendants replied to plaintiffs response to the motion

7

for summary judgment (#96).1

At the time the court entered its

On March

8
1

9

Document #85 is titled “Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

10

[73]”.

In it, plaintiffs asked that the court stay the motion for summary judgment

11

“until meaningful discovery can be completed” pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

12

Procedure 56(d) and 56(f).

13

motion, deny it, allow time for the parties to obtain affidavits, declarations or

14

take

15

affidavit or declaration that it cannot present facts essential to justify its

16

opposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).

Under Rule 56(f), a court may postpone ruling

17

on

where

18

discovery to explore facts to justify the party’s opposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

56(f).

20

of their Rule 56(d) request.

21

facts plaintiffs need to explore in order to oppose defendants motion for summary

22

judgment.

23

facts to justify an opposition because the defendants have refused to produce

24

sufficient discovery responses. (See #85, p. 5)

25

for summary judgment pending resolution of outstanding discovery issues.

26

issues having been resolved as of June 10, 2011, the court concludes no additional

discovery,

a

motion

for

or

Rule 56(d) permits a court to defer considering a

issue any

summary

other

judgment

appropriate order

the

nonmoving

if

a

nonmovant

party

needs

shows

by

additional

Plaintiffs submitted the Declaration of Alfreda Tilman Bester in support
However, the declaration fails to articulate specific

Instead, the declaration argues that

discovery is warranted.

2

plaintiffs are unable to present

Still, the court stayed the motion
Those

1

Discovery closed in this case on March 3, 2011.

2

2011, the magistrate judge entered an order (#99) granting

3

defendants’ motion to stay discovery on the Monell claim (#75) and

4

denying plaintiffs’ motion to extend discovery deadlines and for

5

sanctions (#88).

6

(#99) on June 10, 2011 (#106).

7

issued an order (#107) granting in part and denying in part

8

plaintiffs’ motion to strike (#86), which allowed plaintiffs to

9

file affidavits of witnesses in response to defendants’ motion for

10
11

On April 25,

The court affirmed the magistrate judge’s order
Also on June 10, 2011, the court

summary judgment.
Since plaintiffs’ response (#85) to the motion for summary

12

judgment did not address the merits, plaintiffs shall be given an

13

opportunity to respond to the merits of the defendants’ motion for

14

summary judgment (#73).

15

(15) days from the date of this order in which to file a supplement

16

to their response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment that

17

addresses the merits of the motion for summary judgment.

18

addition, defendants shall have five (5) days from the date

19

plaintiffs’ supplemental response is filed in which to file a

20

supplemental reply in support of their motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, plaintiffs shall have fifteen

In

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED this 10th day of June 2011.

24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26

3