Johnson v. Holms

Filing 77

ORDER denying 74 Motion for Video Expert and Disregarding 76 Response to Declaration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 5/27/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:18-cv-00647-GMN-EJY Document 77 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

ADRIAN JOHNSON,

5
6
7
8

Case No. 2:18-cv-00647-GMN-EJY

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
SGT D. HOLMS, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

Before the Court is Plaintiff Adrian Johnson’s Motion Requesting the Court …

11

Provide/Appoint a Video/Surveillance Expert & Private Investigator; In the Alternative Extend

12

Disclosure of Expert Witness (ECF No. 74). The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion and

13

Defendants’ Opposition (ECF No. 75). No reply was timely filed.

14

Plaintiff states he is in need of an expert because Defendants state they continue to search

15

documents relevant to his claims, including video surveillance of events Plaintiff alleges took place

16

that underly his causes of action. ECF No. 74 at 1-2. Defendants argue, referring to ECF No. 62,

17

that Plaintiff “is requesting an expert to help him with surveillance footage that does not exist.” ECF

18

No. 75 at 1. In Defendants’ filing opposing Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (ECF

19

No. 62), Defendants explain:

20
21
22
23
24
25

Since this case was filed, the LVMPD Defendants (Sgt. Daniel Holm, Sgt. Mark
Binko, Ryan Heise, Charles Cullina and Michael Murphy) have produced 1,552
pages of documents in addition to several minutes of video footage depicting
officers placing Johnson in a restraint chair. For his part, Johnson served them with
17 requests for production of documents. Notwithstanding their objections to the
many vague, ambiguous, and overbroad requests, the LVMPD Defendants
responded to each request by referencing the Bates numbers of hundreds of
documents that were responsive to the requests. On the rare occasion that
absolutely no documents existed to satisfy Johnson’s request or the request was so
inscrutable that they could not appropriately respond, the LVMPD Defendants
informed Johnson.

26

ECF No. 62 at 1-2 (emphasis in the original). Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ argument and

27

offers nothing to the Court to suggest Defendants’ representations regarding the unavailability of

28

any additional video or surveillance are inaccurate.
1

Case 2:18-cv-00647-GMN-EJY Document 77 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 2

1

“The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, does not provide for the appointment of

2

expert witnesses to aid prisoners or other litigants.” Cepero v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police

3

Department, No. 2:11-cv-01421-JAD-NJK, 2019 WL 2616179, at *1 (D. Nev. June 26, 2019)

4

(internal citations omitted). Instead, the district court has discretion to appoint an expert under Fed.

5

R. of Evid. 706(a), which states that “the court may order the parties to show cause why expert

6

witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to submit nominations. The court may

7

appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its own choosing.”

8
9

Given the foregoing, the Court finds there is no basis upon which to conclude a video or
surveillance expert is necessary or will even benefit this case.

10

In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an extension of the expert disclosure deadline. ECF No. 74

11

at 3. Plaintiff states that the expert disclosure deadline should be extended because time is needed

12

to allow such expert to conduct his/her own investigation. However, as stated above, there is no

13

basis upon which the Court may reasonably conclude that a video or surveillance expert is

14

appropriately appointed.

15

Accordingly,

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting the Court … Provide/Appoint

17

a Video/Surveillance Expert & Private Investigator; In the Alternative Extend Disclosure of Expert

18

Witness (ECF No. 74) is DENIED.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Declaration (ECF No.

20

76) is disregarded by the Court as moot.

21

DATED: May 27, 2020

22
23
24
25

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2