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)
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?