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