Lewis v. Skolnik

Filing 67

ORDER that 62 Motion for Judicial Notice is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 64 Counter-motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 4/16/13. (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

RICKY LEWIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:09-cv-02393-KJD-GWF
ORDER
Motion for Judicial Notice (#62);
Countermotion to Strike Motion #62
(#64)

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice (#62), filed on

15

March 29, 2013. The remaining defendants, Gregory Cox and Lavert Taylor (“Defendants”), filed

16

a Response (#63) and Counter-motion to Strike (#64) on April 15, 2013.

17

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Defendants unconstitutionally denied him kosher meals while

18

he was incarcerated by the State of Nevada. In his Motion (#62), Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of a

19

written offer of settlement Plaintiff sent Defendants on March 25, 2013. Under Federal Rule of

20

Evidence 201(a), courts may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact. Courts may only judicially

21

notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it either “is generally known within

22

the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction” or “can be accurately and readily determined from a source

23

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1)-(2). Offers of

24

settlement are generally not admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408(a). See SCD RMA,

25

LLC v. Farsighted Enterprises, Inc., 591 F.Supp.2d 1131, 1135 n. 3 (D. Hawaii 2008). Rule

26

408(a) favors the settlement of disputes by allowing the parties to be candid “without fear that their

27

conduct or statements will later be used against them when proving liability, invalidity, or amount

28

of a claim.” Sterling Sav. Bank v. Citadel Development Co., Inc., 656 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1255 (D.

1

Oregon 2009). The Court finds Plaintiff’s settlement offer is not judicially noticeable under Rule

2

of Evidence 201(b). Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice (#62) is denied.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the Court’s having denied Plaintiff’s Motion (#62),

5

Defendants’ Counter-motion (#64) to strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice is denied as

6

moot.

7
DATED this 16th day of April, 2013.
8
9
10

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

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