Fernandez v. Aranas et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 35 Motion to Serve 12 , 20 and 27 and denied as to Exhibit C. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF, cc: 29 Order to P - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
RENE F. FERNANDEZ,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00812-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 35)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve. Docket No. 35. Defendants have filed

17

a response in opposition. Docket No. 38. Plaintiff requests to be served with motions filed by

18

Defendants. Defendants have filed two motions in this case: a Motion for Leave to File Documents

19

Under Seal (Docket No. 14) and a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 15). The Clerk’s Office

20

has already served Plaintiff copies of each.

21

Plaintiff also requests documents under seal, at Docket Nos. 12, 20, 27. Docket No. 35 at 2.

22

Docket No. 20 is an Ex Parte Motion to Extend Copy Limit filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff must retain his

23

own copy of the motion he filed and is not entitled to service from the Clerk’s Office. Docket Nos. 12

24

and 27 are last-known addresses filed under seal and, therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to them.

25

Additionally, Plaintiff requests access to Exhibit C to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

26

Judgment. The Court previously denied this request without prejudice. Docket No. 29 at 2-3. The

27

Court also denied Plaintiff’s previous Motion for Reconsideration to access Exhibit C to Defendants’

28

Motion for Summary Judgment. Docket No. 37 at 3. The Court noted that, in his Motion to Reconsider,

1

Plaintiff failed for a second time to explain whether he has pursued the avenues available to him by

2

either requesting to review his medical records under the direct supervision of medical staff or serving

3

discovery requests upon Defendants. Id. Plaintiff has now, for the third time, failed to explain whether

4

he has pursued either of these avenues.

5

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve is hereby DENIED as

6

to Defendants’ two motions, DENIED as to Docket Nos. 12, 20, and 27, and DENIED as to Exhibit C.

7

The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s Office to serve the Order Denying Ex Parte Motion, Docket No.

8

29, on Plaintiff.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 29, 2017

11
12

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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