Maidman v. Demeo et al

Filing 55

ORDER Denying 54 Motion to Submit Evidence. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 6/25/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11

R. KEITH MAIDMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ANTHONY DEMEO, et al
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00474-APG-NJK
ORDER
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE
(DKT. # 54)

12
13
14
15

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff R. Keith Maidman’s Motion to Submit Evidence (Dkt.
# 54), filed June 21, 2013.
BACKGROUND

16

On August 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed the Declaration of Richard McFadden (Dkt. #13), the

17

Declaration of Leslie Villa (Dkt. #14), the Declaration of Brian Salvadge (Doc. # 15), and the Declaration

18

of R. Keith Maidman (Dkt. # 16). On September 6, 2012, the Plaintiff filed several exhibits (Dkt. # 17);

19

on September 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed several affidavits (Dkt. # 18); and on September 24, 2012, the

20

Plaintiff file the Declaration of Ernest Joe Ruis (Dkt. # 19). On September 26, 2012, the Court ordered all

21

of the above filings stricken from the docket. (Dkt. # 23). The Court found that all of these items “appear

22

to be discovery documents or evidence which can be used in regard to any dispositive motions or at trial,

23

but are not appropriately deposited with the court for no reason.” Id., at 1.

24

On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Conditions (Dkt. # 24) and, on October

25

5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Conditions (Dkt. # 26). On November 15, 2012, the Court

26

ordered the above filings stricken from the docket. (Dkt. # 37). The Court found that all of these items

27

“appear to be discovery documents or evidence which can be used in regard to any dispositive motions or

28

at trial, but are not appropriately deposited with the court at this time.” Id.

1

On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Submit Evidence (Dkt. # 54). The

2

Plaintiff acknowledges the Court’s prior orders striking the above-mentioned filings, but asks the Court to

3

file them nonetheless. In support of his motion, the Plaintiff cites no caselaw, but instead claims that the

4

filings are “vital” to his case. Id., at 1 and 3. The Plaintiff appears to believe that filing the documents on

5

the Court’s docket will enter them into evidence at trial. Id., at 3-4.

6

DISCUSSION

7

The Plaintiff’s Motion essentially asks this Court to reconsider its prior orders striking his filings.

8

Reconsideration may be appropriate if the court: (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2)

9

committed clear error, or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change

10

in controlling law. Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Rich v. Taser,

11

2013 WL 129326, *2 (D.Nev. 2013). Reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly

12

and in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of

13

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). A motion for reconsideration

14

may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have

15

been raised earlier. Id.

16

The Plaintiff’s Motion does not cite, let alone attempt to comply with, the applicable standards. The

17

Court finds on its own review that the Plaintiff has not presented newly discovered evidence; the Court did

18

not commit clear error in its prior orders; the prior orders were not manifestly unjust; and no intervening

19

change in controlling law has occurred. Further, the Plaintiff’s Motion has demonstrated that the Court was

20

correct when it found that these documents are either discovery documents or evidence that can be used for

21

dispositive motions or at trial. If the Plaintiff wishes to use the documents at trial, he will have to follow

22

the procedures set forth under the Rules of Evidence, the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of

23

this Court in his attempt to admit them into evidence. Filing documents on the docket, however, is not the

24

proper way to attempt to admit them into evidence.

25

....

26

....

27

....

28

....
2

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED THAT the Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit Evidence (Dkt. # 54) is DENIED.

3
4

Dated this 25th day of June, 2013.

5
6
7

________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3