Buchanan v. Raschke et al

Filing 58

ORDER Denying 55 Motion to Toll Payment of Costs and Fees, to Compel Discovery, and Unseal the IAB File. Plaintiff shall pay the City Defendants' reasonable attorney's fees of $1,225 incurred in having to respond to this motion. Plaintiff's payment in sum of $4,725 due by 8/27/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 08/15/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

JAMES JEFFREY BUCHANAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-00271-RCJ-GWF
ORDER
Motion to Toll Payment of Fees
and Costs, Compel Discovery and
to Unseal IAB File (#55)

13

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Toll Payment of Fees and

14

Costs, to Compel Discovery and to Unseal IAB FIle (#55), filed on July 11, 2012; City Defendants’

15

Response (#56), filed on July 18, 2012; and the LVMPD Defendants’ Opposition (#57), filed on

16

July 27, 2012.

17

I.

18

Toll Payment of Fees and Cost
On June 20, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the City Defendant the sum total of

19

$3,500 in attorney’s fees based on Plaintiff’s improper, evasive and non-responsive discovery

20

responses. See Order (#53). The Court ordered payment to the City Defendants by July 11, 2012.

21

On the day payment was due, Plaintiff filed this instant motion requesting the Court toll the

22

payment of the fee award until after the close of this case. Plaintiff argues that it is unreasonable to

23

require payment of fees while Plaintiff continues to seek discovery from the LVMPD Defendants.

24

In response, the City Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to offer a valid reason for tolling the

25

payment of fees because the discovery dispute with the LVMPD Defendants is irrelevant to

26

Plaintiff’s obligations to the City Defendants. The City Defendants further request attorney’s fees

27

in the amount of $1,225 for the time incurred in having to respond to Plaintiff’s motion.

28

...

1

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to offer any justification for tolling the

2

payment of fees. If Plaintiff would have alleged his inability to pay the fee award, the Court would

3

have considered establishing a structured payment plan based on Plaintiff’s financial resources.

4

However, Plaintiff’s offered justification for tolling payment – the discovery dispute with the

5

LVMPD Defendants – has no relevance to Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the City Defendants. The

6

Court further notes that Plaintiff waited until the day payment was due to file this instant motion.

7

The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion is untimely, without merit and brought for the purpose of

8

delaying payment of fees. The Court will therefore award the City Defendants their reasonable

9

attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,225 ($350/hour x 3 hours) for having to oppose this motion.

10

II.

11

Compel Discovery
Plaintiff further requests the Court compel further discovery from the LVMPD Defendants.

12

Plaintiff asserts that the IAB file disclosed is incomplete because certain documents reference

13

further action, the Bates stamp numbering is not sequential, there are audio files missing and there

14

is nothing in the material reflecting a conversation between internal affairs and Defendant Raschke

15

from the night of the incident. In response, the LVMPD Defendants maintain that all discovery

16

regarding the IAB investigation has been disclosed and the IAB file in Plaintiff’s possession is

17

complete. The Court has no reason to doubt the LVMPD Defendants’ representations that all

18

discovery regarding the IAB investigation has been disclosed. The LVMPD Defendants’ responses

19

to Plaintiff’s concerns regarding discovery appear reasonable and satisfy the Court that the LVMPD

20

Defendants have met their discovery obligations. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s motion

21

to compel discovery.

22

III.

23

Unseal IAB File
Plaintiff further requests the Court unseal the IAB file. On June 20, 2012, the Court entered

24

an Order (#54), finding that a protective order governing the IAB file was necessary to protect its

25

confidential nature. Plaintiff now “seeks to address the issues which the Court has left open” and

26

requests the IAB file be unsealed to allow Plaintiff to disclose the contents of the file to appropriate

27

state agencies. Contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Court did not leave any issues open

28

regarding the protective order governing the IAB file. The Court found a protective order was
2

1

necessary after both parties had an opportunity to fully brief the issue. As the LVMPD Defendants

2

point out, if Plaintiff wishes to report possible criminal conduct to the appropriate agency, Plaintiff

3

can file a complaint and the agency can then subpoena the IAB file directly from the LVMPD. The

4

Court therefore finds no reason to change its previous order concerning the IAB file. Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Toll Payment of Fees and Costs, to

6
7
8
9
10
11

Compel Discovery and Unseal the IAB File (#55) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay the City Defendants’ reasonable
attorney’s fees of $1,225 incurred in having to respond to this motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is to make payment in the sum of $4,725 no
later than Monday, August 27, 2012. 1
DATED this 15th day of August, 2012.

12
13

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Payment of $4,725 includes the Court’s previous award of $3,500 in fees (see # 53) and the additional award
of the City Defendants’ attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,225 for having to oppose this motion.

3