Hulihan v. Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada et al

Filing 88

ORDER Denying 78 Motion to Retroactively File a Document without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 6/8/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 5 SHARON HULIHAN, 6 Plaintiff, 7 vs. 8 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION 9 COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, a Public Entity under State and 10 Federal Statutes and LAIDLAW TRANSIT SERVICES, INC., a Foreign 11 Corporation; and FIRST TRANSIT, INC., a Foreign Corporation; and 12 DOES 1-100, inclusive, 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:09-cv-01096-ECR-RJJ Order 15 On September 13, 2010, Plaintiff Sharon Hulihan (“Plaintiff”) 16 filed a motion (#56) to enter evidence and expert witness, 17 subpoenaed documents and affidavit (the “Motion to Enter Evidence”). 18 Defendants opposed (#62) and Plaintiff replied (#65). On October 6, 19 2010, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter Evidence came for hearing before 20 Magistrate Judge Robert Johnston, who denied the motion (#56). 21 On May 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion (#78) for the Judge to 22 retroactively order a document that had apparently been lost in the 23 mail to be filed nunc pro tunc judgment (“Motion to Retroactively 24 File Document”). In this motion, Plaintiff requested that this 25 Court enter into evidence her previous Motion to Enter Evidence and 26 the documents attached thereto on the belief that such documents had 27 been lost in the mail. (#78) On May 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a 28 1 motion (#80) for Magistrate Judge to Reconsider regarding the 2 admissibility of evidence. The motion (#78) is ripe, and we now 3 rule on it. 4 In fact, the Court did not fail to enter these documents into 5 evidence because they were lost in the mail. Rather, Magistrate 6 Judge Johnston previously denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter 7 Evidence related to this material on October 6, 2010 (#56). 8 Plaintiff’s request that this Court enter the documents into 9 evidence nunc pro tunc will therefore be considered as an appeal 10 from Magistrate Judge Johnston’s ruling. 11 At the hearing on October 6, 2010, Magistrate Judge Johnston 12 indicated that Plaintiff’s motion to enter the documents into 13 evidence is premature and that the evidence must be authenticated by 14 witnesses at trial. We have reconsidered Magistrate Johnston’s 15 ruling and find that it was proper and appropriate. Plaintiff 16 should appropriately wait until trial to seek to admit this 17 evidence. We note that some of the documents, if they are relevant 18 and permitted by the pretrial order, may be admissible through an 19 affidavit and others if not pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 20 902(11). 21 22 IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (#78) 23 to Retroactively file Document is DENIED without prejudice. 24 25 DATED: June 8, 2011. 26 ____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?