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)
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?