Fleming v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 49

ORDER Denying 40 LVMPD's Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 44 and 46 Motions for Leave to File Document Under Seal are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that parties shall file a joint statement concerning discovery dispute to within 7 days from the entry of this order. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/28/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10

WILLIAM FLEMING,

Case No. 2:11-cv-00131-MMD-VCF
Plaintiff,

11

ORDER
12
13

v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

14

(Def.’s Motion for Summary Judgment –
dkt. no. 40;
Def.’s Motion for Leave to File Document
Under Seal – dkt. nos. 44 and 46)

Defendants.
15
16

Before the Court is Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s

17

(“LVMPD”) Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 40), as well as LVMPD’s Motions for

18

Leave to File Document Under Seal (dkt. nos. 44 and 46.)

19

Plaintiff William Fleming filed his Response to LVMPD’s Motion for Summary

20

Judgment opposing summary judgment on the grounds that he lacks the evidence

21

necessary to raise a triable issue of fact as to LVMPD’s Monell liability. This discovery

22

dispute arose when Plaintiff requested documents in Officer Salvatore’s personnel file

23

relating to hiring, training, supervision, discipline, and ultimate firing of Salvatore. On

24

June 15, 2012, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach ruled that the confidential information

25

should be produced for Fleming’s attorney’s eyes only. (See dkt. no. 38.) If Fleming

26

wishes to use that information as evidence, or wishes to provide it to a retained expert,

27

Judge Ferenbach ordered that he notify LVMPD and provide LVMPD an opportunity to

28

make necessary redactions of sensitive information within those documents. If

1

redactions are made, but the parties object to the scope of the redactions, Judge

2

Ferenbach instructed them to file a joint statement concerning the dispute.

3

Fleming now claims that while LVMPD produced all of the relevant documents for

4

his attorney’s eyes only, LVMPD failed to respond to Fleming’s request for redactions.

5

As a result, Fleming says that he cannot properly oppose the summary judgment motion.

6

LVMPD, in its Reply, states that upon providing all of the documents to Fleming’s

7

attorney for his eyes only, Fleming’s attorney sought full production of the entire file for

8

use as evidence. LVMPD opposed this request, arguing that they were highly

9

confidential and irrelevant to this case. Thereafter, no joint statement or additional

10

motion to the Magistrate Judge was made regarding this dispute.

11

As Magistrate Judge Ferenbach is best positioned to resolve this dispute, the

12

Court orders the parties to present a joint statement concerning this dispute to Judge

13

Ferenbach within seven (7) days from the entry of this Order. In the interim period, the

14

Court denies LVMPD’s Motion for Summary Judgment.1 Depending on the resolution of

15

this discovery dispute, LVMPD may bring a renewed motion for summary judgment, or

16

request that the Court reinstate the Motion already on file without further briefing.

17
18
19
20

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant LVMPD’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (dkt. no. 40) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LVMPD’s Motions for Leave to File Document
Under Seal (dkt. nos. 44 and 46) are GRANTED.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint statement concerning

22

their discovery dispute to the presiding Magistrate Judge within seven (7) days from the

23

entry of this Order.

24

DATED THIS 28th day of February 2013.

25
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
1

28

LVMPD’s Motions for Leave to File Under Seal (dkt. nos. 44 and 46) are granted.
Good cause exists to seal the sensitive material attached in LVMPD’s Reply.
2