Mitchell, Jr. v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 71

ORDER denying 59 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/20/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

DONALD E. MITCHELL, JR.,

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

vs.

13

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

14
Defendant(s).
15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00037-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 57, 59)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice. Docket No. 57. Defendants
filed a response in opposition, as well as a motion to strike. Docket No. 59. No reply was filed.

18

Plaintiff’s motion seeks judicial notice of a settlement discussion with Defendants’ counsel and

19

of alleged retaliatory conduct within the prison thereafter. See Docket No. 57. These are not facts

20

pertinent to any matter pending before this Court in this case, nor are the facts “not subject to reasonable

21

dispute.” See, e.g., Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201).

22

Accordingly, the motion for judicial notice is DENIED.

23

Defendants’ motion seeks to strike Plaintiff’s motion. See Docket No. 59. The Court has

24

authority to strike an improper filing under its inherent power to control its docket. E.g., Ready Transp.,

25

Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). “Motions to strike under the inherent power

26

. . . are wholly discretionary.” Jones v. Skolnik, 2015 WL 685228, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 18, 2015). In

27

deciding whether to exercise that discretion, courts consider whether striking the filing would “further

28

the overall resolution of the action,” and whether the filer has a history of excessive and repetitive filing

1

that have complicated proceedings. Id. “Courts have expressed reluctance at striking material without

2

some showing of prejudice to the moving party.” Benson v. Nevada, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52095, at

3

*2 (D. Nev. Apr. 4, 2017) (citing Roadhouse v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept., 290 F.R.D. 535, 543 (D.

4

Nev. 2013)). Although Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice includes facts that

5

they find to be “outrageous and scandalous,” Docket No. 59 at 5, they fail to explain how striking the

6

document would advance the overall resolution of this action or how they are prejudiced by not striking

7

the document. Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: October 20, 2017

10

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2