Gonzalez v. Clark County, ex rel et al

Filing 49

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Compel; ORDER granting 40 Motion to Extend Time. FURTHER ORDERED that on or before March 28, 2018, Defendants must submit to chambers the internal affairs file. Discovery due by 6/15/2018. Motions due by 7/16/2018. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 8/15/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 3/20/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 5 DAVID GONZALEZ, 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 9 vs. CLARK COUNTY, EX REL-THE CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, SGT. ASPIAZU, 7117, CO HOOD, #9902, et al., 10 2:17-cv-00607-JAD-VCF ORDER Defendants. 11 12 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 39) and Motion to Extend 13 Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 41). 14 representations and arguments from the parties on the Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion to Extend 15 Discovery Deadlines. 16 Motion to Compel Discovery The Court held a hearing on March 14, 2018 and heard 17 1. Plaintiff makes a request for production of the video recording of the incident. Defendants state 18 on the record that they have searched for a video of the incident but no copy was preserved. Defendants 19 state that they have provided a supplement to their written discovery, on March 12, 2018, to Plaintiff and 20 it should resolve many of the issues raised in Plaintiff’s motion to compel. The court finds that Defendants 21 have adequately and sufficiently answered the request for production of document with regards to the 22 video recording of the incident. 23 2. Plaintiff requests a copy of the actual internal affairs file. Defendants argue government 24 immunity privilege. After weighing the parties’ interest, the court has ordered Defendants to produce the 25 internal affairs file to chambers, on or before March 28, 2018, for an in camera review. Defendants do 1 not have to produce the internal affairs file to plaintiff. The court will make a determination as to the 2 relevance of the internal affairs file at a later date. Defendants have offered to also produce the use of 3 force report to chambers to show that the actual internal affairs file is not relevant or admissible. The use 4 of force report was produced as a supplement to the production of documents to Plaintiff on Mach 12, 5 2018. 6 3. Plaintiff asks the Court to address Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. 7 Plaintiff states that Officer Aspiazu took 10 pictures of him in his cell a five days after the incident but 8 Defendants have only produced two photographs. Mr. Freeman will check with his client for more 9 pictures or provide an explanation to the Plaintiff for the lack of photographs by March 28, 2018. 10 4. Plaintiff requests Defendants to produce all reports of the incident. He alleges that 11 approximately 15 officers were at the scene of the incident, however, Defendants have only produced 4 12 reports and the reports were all approved by Officer Aspiazu. Defendants have stated that there are only 13 four reports of the incident, with Officer Aspiazu as the supervising officer, and all four have been 14 produced to Plaintiff. The Court finds that Defendants have produced all reports and Plaintiff’s request 15 for additional reports of the incident is denied. 16 5. As for Interrogatories, a discussion was held on ROGS Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14. Plaintiff 17 requests that Defendants produce the names of all the inmates that witnessed the fight and incident. Mr. 18 Freeman argues and objects to ROG No. 14, since every inmate that witnessed the fight has a right to 19 privacy and their names should not be disclosed to Plaintiff. Defendants state that the supplement sent to 20 Plaintiff last week should satisfy ROG No. 10. Plaintiff also seeks the name of his cell mate at the time 21 of the incident. 22 6. The Court finds that Mr. Freeman is ordered to inquire his client if there are any other witnesses 23 to the incident and to produce the name of Plaintiff’s cell mate by March 28, 2018. The request to name 24 the other inmates is denied. 25 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED in 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 part and DENIED in part as discussed above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before March 28, 2018, Defendants must submit to chambers the internal affairs file. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED and the following discovery deadlines apply. 1. DISCOVERY: Pursuant to LR 16-1(b), discovery in this action must be completed on or before June 15, 2018. 2. Expert disclosures must be made on or before April 16, 2018, and the disclosures of rebuttal experts must be made on or before May 16, 2018. 12 3. Dispositive Motions shall be filed and served no later than July 16, 2018. 13 4. The Joint Pretrial Order is due by August 15, 2018. If dispositive motions are filed, the 14 joint pretrial order is due thirty (30) days from the entry of the court’s rulings on the motions or by further 15 order of the court. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DATED this 20th day of March, 2018. _________________________ CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?