Santos v. Allen et al

Filing 31

ORDER Granting 26 Defendants' Motion to Strike documents 23 and 25 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/8/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
2:11-cv-1251-KJD-NJK
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER
AWD ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Notice to the

16

Court (Dkt. #23) and Notice to the Court - and Request for Submission (Dkt. #25). The Court has

17

considered the Defendants’ Motion (#26) and finds that this motion appropriately resolved without

18

oral argument. Local Rule 78-2.

11
12
13
14

19

RONALD SANTOS,

BACKGROUND

20

On February 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case alleging numerous causes

21

of action. Docket No. 8. On May 14, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Docket No.

22

11. On February 25, 2013, the Court screened the Amended Complaint and dismissed, with

23

prejudice, all of the Plaintiff’s claims except his Eighth Amendment claim. Docket No. 15. The case

24

was then stayed for 90 days to determine whether the Attorney General’s office would enter a limited

25

appearance for the purpose of discussing settlement. Id. On March 28, 2013, the Attorney General’s

26

office agreed to a limited appearance and, on April 9, 2013, the Court ordered an inmate early

27

mediation conference. Docket No. 19 and 19. The early mediation conference was held on May 3,

28

2013. No settlement was reached. Docket No. 20. On June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a notice with

1

the Court indicating that he would like to settle this case for the terms he alleges were offered to him

2

in the mediation conference and he listed the alleged terms. Docket No. 23. On July 3, 2013, the

3

Plaintiff filed a second notice with the Court indicating that he would accept alternative settlement

4

offers and again discussed with specificity the settlement discussions which took place during the

5

May 3, 2013, mediation. Docket No. 25. The Defendants have moved to strike both of the Plaintiff’s

6

notices for disclosing confidential settlement discussions.

7

DISCUSSION

8

“It is well established that ‘[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their docket.’ ”

9

Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Atchison,

10

Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.1998) (alteration in

11

original). This includes the power to strike items from the docket as a sanction for litigation

12

conduct. Id. (citing Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 586-87, 588 (9th Cir.2008)). For

13

example, in Ready Transp., Inc., the Ninth Circuit found that it was within the jurisdiction of the

14

court to strike a confidential settlement agreement from the public docket when it had been

15

improperly filed on the docket by the Plaintiff. Id.

16

Here, similar to the plaintiff in Ready Transp., Inc., the Plaintiff has filed information

17

about the confidential settlement discussions on the public docket. The Court order setting the

18

mediation conference clearly states that, “[t]he discussions and negotiations that occur during the

19

mediation conference are confidential. The judges assigned to this case will not be informed by

20

the mediator or by any party or attorney about what was discussed or what offers were made

21

during the mediation conference.” Docket No. 19 at 3. The notices the Plaintiff filed on Docket

22

Nos. 23 and 25 are in violation of this Order. Accordingly, the Court finds that striking those

23

notices from the public docket is an appropriate sanction.

24

...

25

...

26

...

27

...

28
-2-

1

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Notice to the

4
5
6
7

Court and Notice to the Court - and Request for Submission (#26) is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall STRIKE Document Nos. 23 and 25
from the docket.
DATED this 8th day of August, 2013.

8
9
10
11

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-