Clark v. Thomas

Filing 50

ORDER Granting 41 Motion for a Request for a Court Order for Discovery Document and Denying 42 Motion to Stay Pending Ruling on Motion for Request for a Court Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 11/9/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

MICHAEL E. CLARK,

9

Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11

JOHN THOMAS,

12

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:09-cv-2272-GMN-GWF
ORDER

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Request for a Court Order

15

for Discovery Document (#41) and Motion to Stay Pending Ruling on Motion for Request for a

16

Court Order (#41) (#42), filed on October 24, 2011 and Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Motion

17

for Discovery (#45), filed on November 1, 2011. Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendant to

18

disclose the Inspector General’s investigative report (the Report) concerning the alleged assault

19

forming the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint. In response, Defendant submitted the Report under seal

20

as Exhibit A for in camera review. Defendant, who is a former employee of the NDOC, does not

21

oppose disclosure of the Report. However, the NDOC maintains that the report is confidential and

22

may not be disclosed without a court order pursuant to NAC § 284.718(j) and NAC § 284.726(f).

23

The Court has reviewed the Report and finds that it should be disclosed to Plaintiff. The

24

Report is relevant to this case as it details the investigation the NDOC conducted of the assault

25

alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. Specifically, the Report identifies the evidence relied upon by the

26

NDOC and outlines their investigation notes. Any privacy interest the Defendant may have in this

27

kind of professional investigatory report is minimal because the Report does not contain the kind of

28

“highly personal” information warranting constitutional safeguard. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S.

1

589, 598–600 (1977); see also Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 457

2

(1977) (public official’s privacy interest is in “matters of personal life unrelated to any acts done by

3

them in their public capacity”). Instead, this report outlines the investigation conducted of

4

Defendant’s behavior when he was acting in his official capacity as a correctional officer. The

5

Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s request and order Defendant to disclose the Report to Plaintiff.

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Request for a Court Order for

8

Discovery Document (#41) is granted. Defendant shall disclose the Attorney General

9

investigatory report submitted for in camera review as Exhibit A to Plaintiff no later than

10
11
12
13

December 1, 2011.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Pending Ruling on Motion
for Request for a Court Order (#41) (#42) is denied.
DATED this 9th day of November, 2011.

14
15
16

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2