Jones v. Skolnik et al
Filing
346
ORDERED that Jones' # 264 Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Due to Spoilation of Relevant Evidence is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 8/6/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
*****
9
CHRISTOPHER A. JONES,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al.,
13
Defendants.
)
) 3:10-cv-00162-LRH-VPC
)
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
14
15
Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones’ (“Jones”) Motion for Adverse
16
Inference Instruction Due to Spoilation of Relevant Evidence. Doc. #264.1 Defendants Yaqub
17
Mustafaa and Taerik Berry (collectively “Defendants”) filed an Opposition (Doc. #273), to which
18
Jones replied (Doc. #277).
19
The Court has reviewed the relevant documents and pleadings on file in this matter and
20
finds that Jones’ Motion is moot. Therein, Jones argues that he is entitled to an adverse inference
21
instruction due to the spoilation of evidence, namely an audible tape-recording of his prison
22
disciplinary hearing on July 30, 2007. However, the Nevada Department of Corrections
23
(“NDOC”) has since produced an audible copy of the disciplinary hearing for Jones’ inspection
24
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(c). Moreover, on June 12, 2014,
25
Magistrate Judge Cooke issued an Order denying Jones’ Motion to Compel Discovery from
26
Mustafaa and to Determine the Sufficiency of Answers. Doc. #318. Therein, Magistrate Judge
27
Cooke reviewed Mustafaa’s Answer to Jones’ Request for Production #6, related to the
28
1
Refers to the Court’s docket number.
1
audiotapes at issue, and determined that Mustafaa’s response shall stand. Because Jones’ request
2
relates to a matter that has since been resolved, his Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Due
3
to Spoilation of Relevant Evidence is denied as moot. To the extent that Jones challenges the
4
authenticity and trustworthiness of the audiotapes, he must do so via an appropriate motion
5
before the Court.
6
7
8
9
10
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jones’ Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction
Due to Spoilation of Relevant Evidence (Doc. #264) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of August, 2014.
11
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?