Cohen et al v. Hansen et al

Filing 189

ORDER that 179 Plaintiff's Request for Clarification Re: Magistrate Judge's May 8, 2014 Order Excluding Evidence of Plaintiffs' Special Damages is GRANTED to the extent that the court clarifies the written order expressed exactly what the court intended. Plaintiffs' request to modify the order is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/23/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BRADLEY STEPHEN COHEN,

8

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.

9
10

Case No. 2:12-cv-01401-JCM-PAL

(Rqst for Clarification – Dkt. #179)
ROSS B. HANSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Request for Clarification Re: Magistrate Judge’s May 8,

13

2014 Order Excluding Evidence of Plaintiffs’ Special Damages (Dkt. #179). The court has

14

considered the Motion, Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #182), Declaration of Dean G. Von

15

Kallenbach Supporting Defendants’ Response (Dkt. #184), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (Dkt. #186).

16

The court entered a written Order (Dkt. #178) May 8, 2014, following an April 22, 2014

17

hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Plaintiffs’ Actual Damages (Dkt.

18

#150).

19

indicating a written order would follow. Plaintiffs now seek clarification and modification of the

20

written order suggesting the written order is not consistent with the court’s remarks at the time of

21

the hearing.

The court orally ruled from the bench after extensive arguments from both sides,

22

The court entered a written order to more fully articulate the ruling and the rationale for

23

the ruling. The written order summarizes the parties’ positions on the merits of the motion,

24

quoted extensively from the transcript of the hearing, cited the law applicable to the parties’

25

disputes, and decided the motion. The order was careful to point out that its resolution of the

26

parties’ motion did not presume to decide the issues before the district judge in the motion for

27

summary judgment.

28

appropriate and the decision granting Defendant’ request for preclusion sanctions might be

However, because the court found that preclusion sanctions were

1

1

adopted by the district judge, the court applied the Ninth Circuit five-factor test for consideration

2

of case-dispositive sanctions. The order meant what it said. The court found that to permit

3

Plaintiffs to now claim that they have quantifiable monetary damages in any context in this case

4

would reward the type of gamesmanship and trial by ambush the Federal Rules of Civil

5

Procedure and the cases construing them were designed to avoid.

6

Having reviewed and considered the moving and responsive papers,

7

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for Clarification Re: Magistrate Judge’s May 8,

8

2014 Order Excluding Evidence of Plaintiffs’ Special Damages is GRANTED to the extent that

9

the court clarifies the written order expressed exactly what the court intended. Plaintiffs’ request

10
11

to modify the order is DENIED.
DATED this 23rd day of June, 2014.

12
13
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2