Lewis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Filing 120

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 118 Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause is granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to STRIKE Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause 103 from the record in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 2/9/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 9 10 11 12 JOSEPH LEWIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) DELTA AIR LINES, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:14-cv-01683-RFB-GWF ORDER 13 14 This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply to 15 Defendant’s Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 118), filed on February 8, 16 2017. 17 18 19 20 Local Rule 16-5 provides in pertinent part: The court’s ADR process is confidential. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court, no disclosure may be made to anyone, including the judicial officer whom the case is assigned, of any confidential dispute-resolution positions or the evaluating magistrate judge’s advice or opinion. 21 Defendant argues that Plaintiff violated LR 16-5 in his Reply to Defendant’s Response to the 22 Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 103). Specifically, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff disclosed 23 on the public record the amount which Defendant offered Plaintiff during the settlement conference 24 and also disclosed the undersigned’s advice and opinions made during the settlement conference. 25 Review of Plaintiff’s reply confirms Defendant’s assertions. The Court therefore finds that 26 Plaintiff’s reply violates LR 16-5 and will strike it from the public record. Furthermore, as 27 evidenced by the Court’s order sanctioning Plaintiff for his failure to appear at the November 17, 28 2016 settlement conference (see ECF No. 105), the arguments made by Plaintiff in his reply were not 1 2 3 pertinent to the Court’s decision that an award of fees and costs was proper. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 118) is granted. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to STRIKE Plaintiff’s 5 Reply to Defendant’s Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 103) from the record 6 in this case. 7 DATED this 9th day of February, 2017. 8 9 10 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 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?