Nichols v. Clark County Detention Center et al

Filing 44

ORDER Denying 38 Motion to Compel or in the Alternative, Motion for contempt of Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. on 2/10/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

COLBERT NICHOLS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT BANNISTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:09-cv-01698-LDG-GWF
ORDER
Motion to Compel or Alternative
Motion for Contempt of Court (#38)

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel or in the Alternative,

15

Motion for Contempt of Court (#38), filed on January 12, 2012 and Defendants’ Response to Motion to

16

Compel (#40), filed on February 2, 2012.

17

Plaintiff requests the Court compel Defendants to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his medical

18

records and a ten year history of litigation where Defendants have been named parties. Initially, the

19

Court notes that Plaintiff’s discovery motion is untimely. Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order

20

(#31), any discovery motions shall be filed no later than December 30, 2011. Plaintiff filed this instant

21

motion on January 12, 2012. Notwithstanding the untimeliness of this motion, the Court further finds

22

Plaintiff’s motion lacks merit. Defendants have provided a copy of Plaintiff’s medical records to the

23

Warden’s office at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated.

24

Defendants informed Plaintiff that if he wishes to view his medical records, he needs to submit a kite

25

request and make the appropriate arrangements with the Warden’s office. Defendants have provided

26

Plaintiff with a means of accessing his medical records and therefore have satisfied their discovery

27

obligation to produce Plaintiff’s medical records.

28

...

1

Plaintiff’s request for a list of all the lawsuits over the past ten years that the

2

Defendants were named as parties is overly burdensome and not relevant to the case at hand. The Court

3

therefore will not compel Defendants to produce such a list. Accordingly,

4
5
6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel or in the Alternative, Motion
for Contempt of Court (#38) is denied.
DATED this 10th day of February, 2012.

7
8
9

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2