Sitton v. LVMPD et al

Filing 253

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 218 plaintiff Will Sitton's partial objection be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 219 Naphcare's motion for clarification be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/21/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:17-cv-00111-JCM-VCF Document 253 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

WILL SITTON,

8

Case No. 2:17-CV-111 JCM (VCF)
Plaintiff(s),

9

v.

10

ORDER

LVMPD, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16

Presently before the court is plaintiff Will Sitton’s partial objection, (ECF No. 218), to the
magistrate judge’s order, (ECF No. 218). The defendants responded. (ECF No. 222, 224).
Also before the court is defendant Naphcare’s motion for clarification. (ECF No. 219).
Plaintiff responded, (ECF No. 221), to which Naphcare replied, (ECF No. 223).

17

Per Local Rule IB 3-1(a), a magistrate judge’s decision on a non-dispositive motion may

18

be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Grand Canyon Skywalk Dev., LLC v.

19

Cieslak, No. 2:13-CV-596-JAD-GWF, 2015 WL 1805055, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 20, 2015). Review

20

for “clear error” is deferential and will only overturn a magistrate judge’s order if, upon review,

21

this court is left with “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” David H.

22

Tedder & Associates, Inc. v. United States, 77 F.3d 1166, 1169-70 (9th Cir. 1996).

23

Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge erred in disallowing plaintiff’s legal assistants,

24

who are fellow inmates and not parties to this action, from reviewing any material disclosed

25

pursuant to the court’s order to compel. (ECF No. 218).

26

This court denies plaintiff’s motion. (Id.). The magistrate judge’s order contains no clear

27

error. (ECF No. 215). Indeed, plaintiff is not entitled to assistance in reviewing these documents,

28

having been found to potentially contain confidential, privileged, and proprietary information.

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Case 2:17-cv-00111-JCM-VCF Document 253 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 2

1

Although plaintiff “is entitled to certain discovery in his civil case, . . . he is not entitled to legal

2

representation or help with discovery from the individual he refers to as his legal assistant, fellow

3

inmate Greene, or any other fellow inmate or non-attorney.” (Id.). As one such legal assistant has

4

admitted, he is not “bound by professional ethics involving attorneys.” (ECF No. 218 (He instead

5

voluntarily adheres to “ethics as part of [his] paralegal training.”)). Plaintiff’s points of authority

6

also fail to expose any error in the magistrate judge’s conclusion. (ECF No. 218). Giving

7

plaintiff’s pro se filing a benefit of the doubt, this court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s order

8

in its entirety for clear error in fact or law. (ECF No. 215). This court finds none.

9

This court now turns to Naphcare’s request that this court clarify “that the issues that

10

survived NaphCare’s Motion to Dismiss include only the allegations as set forth in the kites he

11

included with his Complaint.”

12

interpretation of this court’s prior order as to discovery is consistent with the plain language of that

13

order and this court’s intent. (ECF No. 114 (“NaphCare notes that ten of the 22 forms were filed

14

more than two years prior to plaintiff’s initiation of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, plaintiff cannot

15

pursue a cause of action based on these requests due to the two-year statute of limitations.”)).

(ECF No. 219).

Naphcare’s order is hereby granted.

Its

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff Will Sitton’s

18
19

partial objection, (ECF No. 218) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Naphcare’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 219) be,

20

and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

21

DATED December 21, 2020.

22
23

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-