Edwards v. Clark County et al

Filing 139

ORDER that 119 Motion to Compel Discovery is denied; that 120 Motion for Emergency Hearing for Motion to Compel is denied as moot; that 135 Motion for Reconsideration of Document 123 is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 9/21/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 RONNIE EDWARDS, 10 11 12 13 14 ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:13-cv-01316-JAD-CWH ORDER INTRODUCTION 15 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motions (docs. # 119, # 120, # 135), and 17 Defendants’ responses (docs. # 124, # 125, # 129, # 130, # 137) to these motions. Plaintiff did not file 18 replies. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of 21 Corrections (“NDOC”) and currently incarcerated at the High Desert State Prison. On January 14, 22 2014, the Court entered a screening order finding that Plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to support his 23 Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to his medical needs and deliberate indifference 24 to his safety. See Doc. # 6. The Court’s screening order also directed the Clerk of Court, among 25 others, to issue summonses for various defendants and to send plaintiff USM-285 forms to fill out and 26 furnish to the U.S. Marshals Service so defendants could be served. Id. The Court subsequently 27 issued orders governing service, along with a discovery schedule, in the instant case. See Docs. # 23, 28 # 37, # 42, # 54, # 55. 1 2 DISCUSSION 1. Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. # 119) 3 Plaintiff seeks to compel: (1) initial and amended responses from Dr. Mondora, Simeon, 4 Hightower, Scott, and Reyes; (2) documents from Dr. Mondora, Simeon, Hightower, Scott, and Reyes; 5 and (3) “non-blank pages” from defense counsel. 6 In response, Dr. Mondora and Simeon contend that, with respect to Plaintiff’s request for 7 production no. 4 (“request no. 4), Plaintiff violated Local Rule 26-7(a) by failing to set forth the 8 complete text of the response to Plaintiff’s request. Dr. Mondora and Simeon next point out that 9 Plaintiff failed to identify the additional information he seeks to compel, or to show why the response 10 to request no. 4 is unjustified. Dr. Mondora and Simeon then point out that request no. 4 appears to 11 seek information likely protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, and that 12 Plaintiff has already received all known responsive information involving request no. 4. Assuming 13 Plaintiff seeks a copy of his “sick call” appointment list in request no. 4, Dr. Mondora and Simeon 14 contend that the document was already disclosed to Plaintiff in their fifth supplement to initial 15 disclosures. 16 With respect to Plaintiff’s request for production no. 11 (“request no. 11”), Dr. Mondora and 17 Simeon argue that this overbroad and vague request seeks information that has already been disclosed 18 to Plaintiff. Dr. Mondora and Simeon explain that a discussion with Plaintiff during the May 14, 2015 19 “meet and confer” revealed that Plaintiff was seeking a copy of his “sick call” appointment list. 20 Because this was already provided to Plaintiff in a supplement, Dr. Mondora and Simeon argue that 21 request no. 11 is moot. 22 With respect to Plaintiff’s June 8, 2015 discovery request, Dr. Mondora and Simeon argue that 23 they should not be compelled to respond because Plaintiff failed to timely serve his request. Dr. 24 Mondora and Simeon explain that the June 8th request should have been served prior to May 15, 20151 25 and, consequently, defense counsel sent correspondence to Plaintiff on July 2, 2015 objecting to the 26 untimely discovery request. Lastly, with respect to the “blank pages” Plaintiff sought from defense 27 counsel, Dr. Mondora and Simeon point out that Plaintiff was specifically informed at the “meet and 28 2 Under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party has 30 days to respond to discovery requests. 2 1 confer” and, later, following Plaintiff’s deposition, that the page stamped as NaphCare 151 is correctly 2 blank, and that no information is missing from the discovery produced involving Plaintiff’s medical 3 records. As such, Dr. Mondora and Simeon conclude that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied. 4 Meanwhile, Hightower, Scott, and Reyes contend that Plaintiff brings new issues before the 5 Court that were never raised or discussed at a “meet and confer.” Hightower, Scott, and Reyes also 6 contend that any alleged issues Plaintiff has with the discovery responses lack merit. Specifically, with 7 respect to requests for production 1, 2, and 3 served on Scott, all materials within Scott’s custody, 8 including work orders, were produced to Plaintiff but not “bed move” records, which Scott has no 9 control over, and Plaintiff was previously informed of such. 10 With respect to requests for production 1, 2, and 7 served on Reyes, Reyes argues that he has 11 no control over responsive documents to Plaintiff’s vague requests, and any responsive documents 12 should have been requested from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”), which 13 Reyes previously explained to Plaintiff. 14 With respect to requests for production 1, 2, and 3 served on Hightower, Hightower argues that 15 the ITag report, which Plaintiff describes as a “log book,” was already produced to Plaintiff twice, 16 along with incident reports and work orders. Any other documents Plaintiff seeks, per Hightower, 17 should have been requested from the LVMPD, with Hightower already informing Plaintiff of such. 18 With respect to Plaintiff’s discovery requests served on May 20, 2015 and June 15, 2015, 19 Hightower, Scott, and Reyes argue that they should not be compelled to respond because Plaintiff 20 failed to timely serve these requests. Hightower, Scott, and Reyes explain that these requests should 21 have been served prior to May 15, 2015 and, consequently, they sent correspondence informing 22 Plaintiff that they would not be responding to these untimely requests. Given such, Hightower, Scott, 23 and Reyes ask the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff did not file a reply. 24 Upon review of the information and exhibits provided, this Court agrees with Defendants and 25 finds no basis for granting the instant motion. As such, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 26 2. 27 28 Motion for Emergency Hearing for Motion to Compel (doc. # 120) Because the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (doc. # 119), the Court denies as moot Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency hearing. 3 1 2 3 3. Motion for Reconsideration of Doc. # 123 (doc. # 135) Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider it’s prior order (doc. # 123), and provides a detailed synopsis of his purported efforts in obtaining discovery from Defendants in this case. 4 Dr. Mondora and Simeon, in response,2 contend that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied 5 because: (1) the correction requested is neither clerical in nature, nor an omission on the part of the 6 magistrate judge; (2) Plaintiff fails to provide any grounds for reconsideration; (3) Plaintiff fails to 7 demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” warranting a reconsideration of the prior order; (4) the 8 order at issue is a non-appealable order; and (5) Plaintiff makes only a general objection to the Court’s 9 prior order but fails to demonstrate that it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff did not file 10 a reply. 11 This Court finds that Plaintiff fails to assert any grounds in support of his request for 12 reconsideration, and merely disagrees with this Court’s order. Indeed, a motion for reconsideration 13 is properly denied when the movant fails to establish any reason justifying relief. See Backlund v. 14 Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1985); see also Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th 15 Cir.1995) (denying motion for, among others, failing to demonstrate that “extraordinary 16 circumstances” exist warranting reconsideration); Khan v. Fasano, 194 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. 17 Cal.2001) (“A party cannot have relief under this rule merely because he or she is unhappy with the 18 judgment.”). As such, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. # 119) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Hearing for Motion to Compel (doc. # 120) is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Doc. # 123 (doc. # 135) is denied. DATED: September 21, 2015 27 ___________________________________ 28 C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 1 Hightower, Reyes, and Scott filed a joinder (doc. # 138) to Dr. Mondora and Simeon’s response (doc. # 137). 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?