Moreno v. Cortez-Masto et al

Filing 78

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 6/11/2012 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Joseph Moreno, In Pro Per (Telephonically); Def Counsel: Jeffrey Paul Hoppe; FTR #: FTR; Time of Hearing: 9:34:25 a.m. - 10:17:57 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 52 Motion to Compel is GRANTED as to the following requests for production of documents: Request No. 6, OVE RRULED; Request No. 12, DENIED; Request No. 15, SUSTAINED; and Request No. 16, SUSTAINED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's 55 Motion, Respectfully Requesting Relief for Defendants' Retaliation, is DENIED. See attached PDF Order for further details. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RENO, NEVADA
JOSEPH MORENO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, et al.,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:11-CV-00179-ECR-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
DATED: JUNE 11, 2012

PRESENT: HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB , U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Deputy Clerk: Katie Lynn Ogden

Reporter: FTR: 9:34:25 a.m. - 10:17:57 a.m.

Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Joseph Moreno, In Pro Per (Telephonically)
Counsel for Defendant(s): Jeffrey Paul Hoppe
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION HEARING
9:34 a.m. Court convenes.
The Court reviews the status of this case with the parties and determines that Plaintiff’s Reply
to Defendants’ Answer (Dkt. No. 73) is an unnecessary filing and that to the extent the document
seeks any relief, it is deemed moot. The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
(Dkt. No. 59) and Defendants’ Answer to the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 67) results in Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 57) as being moot and no longer pending before the Court.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No 55) is deemed moot (as previously
ordered in court order Dkt. No 58).
The Court inquires about Plaintiff’s motion entitled “Respectfully Requesting Relief of
Defendants Retaliation” (Dkt. No. 55) and whether a response has been filed to the motion.
Mr. Hoppe explains that it appears that the response was drafted but has not been submitted for
filing. The Court requests Mr. Hoppe to file the response as soon as possible.
Turning to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 52), the Court asks Mr. Moreno that out
of the sixteen document requests in his request for production, which specific requests need to be
addressed during this hearing to resolve any disputes. Mr. Moreno identifies request #6, #12, #15,
and #16 that need to be addressed. After hearing argument from both Mr. Moreno and Mr. Hoppe
the Court orders the following regarding the four requests for production:

Request No. 6: Mr. Hoppe shall provide Mr. Moreno with an unredacted copy of the State
of Nevada Department of Corrections Case Note Printout Report from November 2, 2006
to November 2, 2006. Defendants’ objection is therefore OVERRULED.
Request No. 12: The Court does not find relevance of Mr. J.C. Lister’s arrival date and
housing unit assignment in regards to Plaintiff’s claims in this matter. This request is
therefore DENIED.
Request No. 15: The Court does not find any relevance or likelihood that this request will
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; therefore, the Defendants’ objection to this
request is SUSTAINED.
Request No. 16: The Court finds that the request has been adequately answered by
Defendants’ reference to the response to request for production number 8; therefore,
Defendants’ objection to this request is SUSTAINED.
The Court next addresses Plaintiff’s latest filing as of June 8, 2012, “Notice of a Harmless
Error” (Dkt. No. 77). Plaintiff advises the Court that his latest filing includes Exhibit A with the
Certificate of Service page of the Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Documents (First Set). Mr. Hoppe explains that the document which Plaintiff refers to is a draft
response that was inadvertently provided to Mr. Moreno. In response to the “Notice of a Harmless
Error” document, the Court finds that in the process of Plaintiff’s prosecution of this case, Mr.
Moreno may make comments as to the alleged discrepancies found in Exhibit A of Plaintiff’s
Dkt. No. 77 and Defendants’ response Dkt. No. 54. However, there is no additional relief the Court
can provide as to Plaintiff’s Dkt. No. 77.
The Court readdresses Plaintiff’s motion entitled “Respectfully Requesting Relief for
Defendants Retaliation” (Dkt. No. 55). After the Court is advised that Plaintiff has secured all
documents that were previously removed from his possession, it appears that the motion does not
present any claim for which relief can be provided by the Court. Plaintiff’s motion, Dkt. No. 55, is
therefore DENIED. If there was a response drafted by the Defendants’ it shall be filed; should there
not be a response, the court order will be sufficient as to Dkt. No. 55.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10:17 a.m. Court adjourns.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk