Williams et al v. Sisolak et al

Filing 245

ORDER - Magistrate Judge Couvillier's Orders (ECF No. 229 , 230 ) are affirmed, and the defendants' appeal (ECF No. 231 ) is denied. Defendants' motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No. 243 ) is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/3/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ANGELA WILLIAMS, et al.,
4

Plaintiffs

5 v.

Case No.: 2:21-cv-01676-APG-VCF
Order Affirming Magistrate Judge Order
and Denying Motion to File Surreply

6 STEVE SISOLAK, et al.,

[ECF Nos. 231, 243]

7

Defendants

8

Magistrate Judge Couvillier entered an order that, among other things, allows the

9 plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms. ECF No. 229. He also entered a Protective Order for
10 Purposes of Discovery. ECF No. 230. The defendants filed an appeal of those orders. ECF No.
11 231. They also moved for leave to file a surreply in support of their appeal. ECF No. 243.
12

The defendants claim, among other things, that Judge Couvillier did not address their

13 request that he take judicial notice of Judge Du’s decision in Doe v. Lombardo, Case No. 3:2414 cv-00065. ECF No. 231 at 5 (referencing ECF No. 224). But even if true, that is irrelevant. At
15 best, Judge Couvillier could have taken notice that the decision was entered in that case. But the
16 contents and rationale of that decision are not proper subjects of judicial notice. Cf. Wyatt v.
17 Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Albino v. Baca,
18 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that “taking judicial notice of findings of fact from
19 another case exceeds the limits of Rule 201”). The defendants seem to argue that if Judge
20 Couvillier had taken judicial notice of that decision, he would have had to rule in their favor.
21 But Judge Du’s decision is neither precedential nor binding in this case, and Judge Couvillier,
22 like all District and Magistrate Judges, is entitled to decide issues in a particular case as he sees
23 fit. The defendants’ objection on this ground lacks merit.

1

Judge Couvillier’s Orders are not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule IB

2 3-1(a). To the extent the defendants contend that newly discovered evidence—particularly what
3 they subsequently discovered about the plaintiffs—mandates revisions to the Protective Order
4 (ECF No. 231 at 5 n.3; ECF No. 243-1 at 2-5), that issue may be raised in a new motion before
5 Judge Couvillier.
6

I HEREBY ORDER that Magistrate Judge Couvillier’s Orders (ECF No. 229, 230) are

7 affirmed, and the defendants’ appeal (ECF No. 231) is denied.
8

I FURTHER ORDER that the defendants’ motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No.

9 243) is denied.
10

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2025.

11
12

ANDREW P. GORDON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

2