Gayler v. High Desert State Prison et al

Filing 88

ORDER Granting in part 80 plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days the parties shall meet and confer and file a revised discovery plan and scheduling order for discovery limited to the issue enumerated in the order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/23/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AF)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BRANDYN GAYLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al, ) ) Defendants. ) ) _______________________________________ ) Case No. 2:14-cv-00769-APG-CWH ORDER Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery (ECF No. 80), filed on 11 November 21, 2016. Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 84) on December 7, 2016. Plaintiff filed 12 a reply (ECF No. 86) on December 19, 2016. 13 Plaintiff requests that discovery be re-opened in this matter, arguing that he has been unable 14 to obtain certain documents relevant to Plaintiff’s opposition to the pending motion for summary 15 judgment, and that such documents cannot be reasonably obtained except through reopening 16 discovery. Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that discovery has long since closed in this 17 matter, that Plaintiff’s newly-appointed counsel has not been diligent in pursuing discovery, and that 18 Plaintiff has not shown that the requested materials would be relevant to this case. 19 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s pro bono counsel was appointed pursuant to this Court’s 20 order (ECF No. 57) for further briefing on two specific issues: (1) whether P-seg inmates at High 21 Desert State Prison (HDSP) are treated differently than at Lovelock Correctional Center (LCC), 22 Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC), or Warm Springs Correctional Center (WSCC), and 23 (2) whether such differing treatment would constitute an Equal Protection violation. The latter issue 24 is purely a question of law. However, the former is a question of fact, and as both Plaintiff’s motion 25 and Defendant’s response make clear, at least some of these facts are available to Plaintiff only 26 through further discovery. The Court has explicitly ordered further briefing on these issues, and in 27 order to effectuate that order, discovery on these topics is necessary. 28 1 1 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery (ECF No. 80) is GRANTED in part. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, the parties shall 4 meet and confer and file a revised discovery plan and scheduling order for discovery limited to the 5 issues enumerated above. 6 DATED: December 23, 2016. 7 8 _________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?