Ferm v. McCarty et al

Filing 100

ORDER that all further proceedings in this case are STAYED until further order of this court except that parties may file responses and replies to 69 MOTION to Expedite, 70 and 74 MOTIONS to Strike, and 76 COUNTER-MOTION to Have Todd Kennedy Declared a Vexatious Litigant. Defendants need not file a response to 93 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. Leave to file surreplies or supplements is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 11/5/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10

JACK FERM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COLLEEN MCCARTY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00782-GMN-PAL
ORDER

11
12
13
14

This case was filed May 10, 2012, and already has ninety-seven docket entries and multiple
pending motions which the district judge referred to the undersigned for decision on October 23, 2012.
Plaintiff Jack Ferm is proceeding in this matter pro se. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt.) names

15

KLAS, LLC, Colleen McCarty, Steve Kanigher, Gary Waddell, Emily T. Neilson, and

16

www.8newsnow.com (the “KLAS Defendants”). The Complaint alleges KLAS operates a broadcast

17

television station in Las Vegas, Nevada, employs Defendants McCarty, Kanigher, and Waddell as

18

investigative reporters; Defendants Francis and Waddell as news anchors; and Defendant Neilson as its

19

general manager; and runs the 8newsnow.com website. The Complaint also names various Doe and

20

Roe Defendants, whom Plaintiff alleges are employed by KLAS, publish online weblogs featuring

21

defamatory reports about Plaintiff, and are corporate and other entities who have sponsored or

22

promoted the KLAS Defendants’ reports on Plaintiff, or are unknown individuals who have commented

23

on reports about Plaintiff on the internet.

24

On June 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. #5) against these Defendants,

25

alleging claims for defamation, invasion of privacy/false light, intentional and negligent infliction of

26

emotional distress, and negligent hiring and supervision. Essentially, the Amended Complaint alleges

27

that the Defendants published online reports between March 2009 and November 2011 falsely claiming,

28

among other things, that Plaintiff had been convicted of felony fraud in Nevada state court. Defendants

1

allegedly made the same report on the I-Team News broadcast on KLAS’s station on November 15,

2

2011.

3

On July 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. #8) pursuant to Rule 41 of

4

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing Defendants Neilson, Francis, and Waddell without

5

prejudice. Extensive motion practice followed. The following motions are pending:

6

Motion

Response/Reply

Related Papers

7

Defendants KLAS’s,
Kanigher’s, and McCarty’s
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #10)

Plaintiff’s Response (Dkt. #18)

Plaintiff’s Supplement to #18
Opposition (Dkt. #50)

8

Defendants’ Reply (Dkt. #26)
Defendants’ Request for
Judicial Notice (Dkt. #11)
•
Plaintiff’s Response to
#11 Request (Dkt. #19)
•
Defendants’ Reply to
#19 Response (Dkt.
#28)
•
Plaintiff’s Reply to #19
Response (Dkt. #29)

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff’s First Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment:
Defamation Per Se Claims
(Dkt. #16)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #34)
Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #40)

Declaration in Support of
Plaintiff’s #16 Motion (Dkt.
#21)

16
17

Defendants’ First Errata to #34
Response (Dkt. #36)

18

Defendants’ Second Errata to
#34 Response (Dkt. #82)

19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Dkt.
#22)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #32)

Plaintiff’s Second Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment:
Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress Claims
(Dkt. #23)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #37)

Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions (Dkt. #30)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #42)

Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #39)
Plaintiff’s Errata (Dkt. #55)
Declaration of Herb Sachs in
Support of #23 Motion (Dkt.
#24)

25
26

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial
Notice (Dkt. #17)

27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff’s Third Partial
Motion for Summary
Judgment: False
Light/Invasion of Privacy
Claims (Dkt. #31)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #45)

Plaintiff’s First Motion to
Exclude Evidence (Dkt. #46)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #57)

Defendants’ Errata to #45
Response (Dkt. #83)

Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #52)

Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #78)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw
#30 Motion for Sanctions
(Dkt. #49)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #59)

Defendants KLAS’s,
Kanigher’s, and McCarty’s
Motion to Strike #50
Plaintiff’s Supplement to
Opposition to Motion to
Dismiss (Dkt. #51)

Plaintiff’s Response (Dkt. #66)

Plaintiff’s Second Motion to
Exclude Evidence (Dkt. #53)

Errata to Certificate of Service
for #46 Motion to Exclude
(Dkt. #48)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #58)

Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #79)

Defendants’ Reply (Dkt. #85)

Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #77)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment Against Defendants
(Dkt. #54)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #84)

Plaintiff’s Motion to
Disqualify Defense Counsel
(Dkt. #60)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #89)

Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend/Correct #5 Amended
Complaint (Dkt. #61)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #91)

19

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
#47 Reply (Dkt. #62)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #88)

20

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to
Show Cause (Dkt. #63)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #94)

14
15
16
17
18

21

Defendants’ Errata to #84
Response (Dkt. #92)

Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #97)

Plaintiff’s Proposed Order to
Show Cause (Dkt. #64)
Plaintiff’s Declaration in
Support of #63 Motion for
OTSC (Dkt. #65)

22
23

Plaintiff’s Second Declaration
in Support of #63 Motion for
OTSC (Dkt. #71)

24
25

Plaintiff’s Third Declaration in
Support of #63 Motion for
OTSC (Dkt. #80)

26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File a Surreply to #10 Motion
to Dismiss (Dkt. #67)

Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #95)

Defendants KLAS’s,
Kanigher’s, and McCarty’s
Motion to Stay and For an
Order to Show Cause (Dkt.
#68)

Plaintiff’s Response (Dkt. #72)

Defendants’ Reply (Dkt. #90)

6

Defendants’ Second Reply (Dkt.
#96)

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff’s Second Response (Dkt.
#75)

Defendants KLAS’s,
Kanigher’s, and McCarty’s
Motion to Expedite and for
Status Conference (Dkt. #69)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Declaration of Todd Kennedy
in Support of Defendants’ #68
Motion to Stay (Dkt. #70)

Declaration of Todd Kennedy,
attached as Exhibit 1 to
Defendants’ Motion to Stay
(Dkt. #68)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Declaration of Todd Kennedy
in Support of Defendants’ #68
Motion to Stay (Dkt. #74)

Declaration of Todd Kennedy,
attached as Exhibit 1 to
Defendants’ Motion to Stay
(Dkt. #68)

17

Plaintiff’s Counter-Motion to
Have Todd Kennedy Declared
a Vexatious Litigant (Dkt.
#76)

18

Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reconsider (Dkt. #93)

16

19
20
21

At a hearing conducted October 23, 2012, the court granted the KLAS Defendants’ Motion to

22

Stay Discovery (Dkt. #35) until after their Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #10) was decided to accomplish the

23

objective of Rule 1 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the “just, speedy and inexpensive

24

determination” of this action. The Motion to Dismiss is potentially dispositive of the entire case, and

25

Plaintiff agreed he did not need any discovery to respond to the Motion.

26

Given the large number of motions currently pending, which have now been referred to the

27

undersigned for decision, the court will exercise its inherent authority to manage its docket and stay all

28

further proceedings in this case until the pending motions are decided. See United States v. W.R. Grace,
4

1

526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules,

2

Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998).

3

The parties have filed multiple papers entitled “Errata” and have sought leave to file surreplies.

4

An erratum is “[a]n error that needs correction.” Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). If a document is

5

filed with an error that needs correction, the parties should simply file a corrected version of the

6

document that specifies the correction, using the Notice of Corrected Image entry in the court’s electronic

7

filing system.1 Surreplies and supplemental filings are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil

8

Procedure or the Local Rules of Practice, which allow only a motion, a response, and a reply, without

9

express prior leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7; LR 7-2(a)-(c); Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136 at

10

*1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005) (citing Federick v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1197

11

(N.D. Ga. 2005), which provides that allowing “surreplies as a regular practice would put the court in the

12

position of referring to an endless volley of briefs”). Additionally, a reply may not raise a new issue or

13

argument not made in the initial motion. See, e.g., Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1066 n.5

14

(9th Cir. 2003) (citing Thompson v. Commissioner, 631 F.2d 642, 649 (9th Cir. 1980)). The court will

15

therefore disregard any arguments raised for the first time in a reply and deny the parties leave to file any

16

surreplies or supplements.

17

Having reviewed and considered the matter,

18

IT IS ORDERED:

19

1.

All further proceedings in this case are STAYED until further order of this court except

20

that the parties may file responses and replies to the following motions as permitted by the

21

Local Rules of Civil Practice and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

22

(a)

Defendants’ Motion to Expedite (Dkt. #69);

23

(b)

Plaintiffs’ Motions to Strike the Declaration of Mr. Kennedy (Dkt. ##70, 74); and

24
25
1

26
27
28

Although an erratum may be filed in accordance with the court’s electronic filing procedures, it
clogs the docket, makes it difficult to link to related papers, and frequently generates additional filings
and deadlines. If a party corrects an error with an erratum, the incorrect image remains a part of the
court’s record and must be linked to the erratum. A corrected image, on the other hand, simply replaces
the original filing with the corrected one on the court’s docket.
5

1

(c)

2

Plaintiff’s Counter-Motion to Have Todd Kennedy Declared a Vexatious Litigant
(Dkt. #76).

3

2.

Defendants need not file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Dkt. #93).

4

3.

Leave to file surreplies or supplements is DENIED.

5

Dated this 5th day of November, 2012.

6
7
8

_________________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6