Gonzalez v. Clark County, ex rel et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying without prejudice 31 Motion to Compel; Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 11/13/2017. Discovery due by 2/28/2018., Motions due by 3/29/2018., Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 4/30/2018. FURTHER ORDERED that the stay in this case is lifted. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

DAVID GONZALEZ,
6

Plaintiff,
7
8
9
10

vs.
CLARK COUNTY, EX REL-THE CLARK
COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, SGT.
ASPIAZU, 7117, CO HOOD, #9902,

2:17-cv-00607-JAD-VCF
ORDER
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (ECF NO. 31)

Defendants.

11
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff David Gonzalez’s Motion to Compel Discovery. (ECF No. 31). For
the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied without prejudice.

14

On September 13, 2017, the Court referred the case to the Inmate Early Mediation Program,

15

referred the case to the Pro Bono Program, and stayed the case “for 60 days to allow the parties an

16

opportunity to settle their dispute.” (ECF No. 30). On October 3, 2017, less than 60 days later, Plaintiff

17

filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 31). Defendants opposed the motion, arguing it was filed

18

while the case was stayed. (ECF No. 32). The stay was subsequently extended to January 3, 2018. (ECF

19

No. 35). However, the case has now been removed from both the Inmate Early Mediation Program and

20

the Pro Bono Program. (ECF No. 37).

21

“It is well established that ‘[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their docket,’” including

22

the authority to strike items filed in violation of a court order such as a stay. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR

23

Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules, Inc.,

24

146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.1998)); Almy v. Davis, No. 2:12-CV-00129-JCM-VCF, 2014 WL 773813,

25

1

at *5 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2014). Rather than strike Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the Court will deny it

2

without prejudice and allow Plaintiff the opportunity to refile the motion.1

3

The Court will also lift the stay in this case, as the case has now been removed from both the

4

Inmate Early Mediation Program and the Pro Bono Program. Based on the stay in this case, the Court

5

now extends the discovery deadlines as follows:

6

Discovery Cut-off

February 28, 2018

7

Dispositive Motions

March 29, 2018

8

Joint Pretrial Report

April 30, 2018

9

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 31) is

10
11

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay in this case is lifted.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery deadlines be extended as described above.

14

NOTICE

15

Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and

16
17

recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

18

of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal

19

may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified

20

time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections

21

within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the

22

right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court.

23
24
25

1

This will also give Plaintiff the opportunity to address the meet and confer argument raised by Defendants in their opposition
to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 32).

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452,
1
2

454 (9th Cir. 1983).

3

Pursuant to Local Special Rule 2-2, the Plaintiff must immediately file written notification with

4

the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing

5

party of the party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this Rule may result in dismissal of the action.

6

See LSR 2-2.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
8

DATED this 13th day of November, 2017.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE