Farkas v. State of Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 68

ORDER Granting 67 Motion to Withdraw 65 Defendants' Expert Disclosure. The Clerk is directed to strike Docket # 65 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 8/17/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM) (Main Document 68 replaced on 8/17/2015 - nef regenerated) (MMM).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Nevada Attorney General
DENISE S. McKAY
Deputy Attorney General
Nevada Bar No. 10507
JOHN L. WARD IV
Deputy Attorney General
Nevada Bar No. 12513
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
Romeo Aranas and Karen Gedney

9
10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14

FERENCE FARKAS,

Case No. 2:14-cv-00451-JAD-VCF
Plaintiff,

15
16

vs.

17

STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, as nominal Defendants;
DR. ARANAS; DR. KAREN GEDNEY; DOE
MEDICAL DOCTOR I, and DOE
DEFENDANTS I-X,

18
19

MOTION TO WITHDRAW DEFENDANTS’
EXPERT DISCLOSURE

Defendants.

20
21

Defendants Romeo Aranas and Karen Gedney,1 by and through counsel, Adam Paul

22

Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and John L. Ward IV, Deputy Attorney

23

General, hereby file their Motion to Withdraw Defendants’ Expert Disclosure. This Motion is

24
25
26
27
28

Office of the
Attorney General
100 N. Carson St.
Carson City, NV
89701-4717

1

According to Plaintiff’s superseding First Amended Complaint (Doc. #59), Plaintiff is no longer pursuing
any legal claim against the State of Nevada, ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”). Cf. Doc. #53
at 1:26 – 2:1 (Plaintiff’s opposition [. . .] stipulates to the dismissal of the State and NDOC [. . . and] does not
disagree that Drs. Aranas and Gedney must be dismissed from the federal claims for monetary and declaratory
relief, but also states a desire to amend his complaint to name them in their personal capacities so he can pursue
money damages from them.”). Compare Doc. #59 at 2:17 – 3:10 (Plaintiff did not name State of Nevada, ex rel.
NDOC as a party-defendant in his superseding First Amended Complaint (Doc. #59)) with Doc. #1 at 3:9-12
(Plaintiff named State of Nevada, ex rel. NDOC as a party-defendant in Plaintiff’s now superseded Complaint
(Doc. #1)). Notwithstanding, the caption to this case still inappropriately lists “State of Nevada Department of
Corrections, as nominal Defendants.”

1

1

based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, any oral argument this Court

2

may entertain on the same, and all other papers and pleadings filed in this action.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

3
4

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

5

On August 10, 2015, in error, Defendants filed their Expert Disclosure (Doc. #65). As a

6

discovery document, this Expert Disclosure (#65) was not subject to filing, but rather to

7

mailing (as between the Parties). See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.

8

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

9

12

It has long been understood that certain implied powers must
necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their
institution, powers which cannot be dispensed with in a Court,
because they are necessary to the exercise of all others[. . . .]
These powers are governed not by rule or statute but by the
control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so
as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.

13

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

14

III.

10
11

ARGUMENT

15

Defendants move to withdraw their Expert Disclosure (Doc. #65) from the docket, or to

16

strike2 the same, as this Court sees fit, for the inherent error of filing a discovery document not

17

relevant to a motion to compel, etc.

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

Office of the
Attorney General
100 N. Carson St.
Carson City, NV
89701-4717

2

A district court has the inherent power to strike a party’s submissions other than pleadings. See
Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F.Supp. 1109, 1110 (D.Nev. 1988). The alternative basis for striking improper filings is
the district court’s “inherent power over the administration of its business. It has inherent authority to regulate the
conduct of attorneys [and parties] who appear before it [and] to promulgate and enforce rules for the
management of litigation. [. . .]” Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reason(s), Defendants request that this Court strike or otherwise

withdraw from the docket Defendants’ Expert Disclosure (Doc. #65).
Dated: August 12, 2015.
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
By:
JOHN L. WARD IV
Deputy Attorney General
Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division
Attorneys for Defendants

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Docket # 6 .
The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Docket #65.

17
18
19
20
21

August 17, 2015

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Office of the
Attorney General
100 N. Carson St.
Carson City, NV
89701-4717

3