Flores v. State of Nevada in rel. The Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING P's # 22 Motion for discovery; DENYING as moot P's # 32 Motion to amend; DENYING P's # 25 Motion to admit evidence; GRANTING D's # 27 Motion to strike. P's # 24 Opposition is STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 1/17/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SAMUEL FLORES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
PRESENT:

3:11-cv-00236-HDM-VPC

MINUTES OF THE COURT

January 17, 2012

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is defendant McDaniel’s motion for summary judgment (#12). Also before
the court are several motions. Each motion is addressed in turn.
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Permission For Rule 34 Production of Documents
(#22)

On June 13, 2011, defendant McDaniel filed a motion for summary judgment (#12). On
August 22, 2011, the court granted plaintiff one final extension of time to September 9, 2011, to file
an opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s request for
discovery (#18). Plaintiff filed his opposition on September 12, 2011 (#20). On October 6, 2011,
plaintiff filed a motion requesting permission for Rule 34 production of documents in order to
oppose defendant’s motion for summary judgment (#22). Defendant opposed (#28) and plaintiff
replied (#36). The time to respond to defendant’s motion for summary judgment has now passed
and the motion is fully briefed pursuant to Local Rule 7-2. Thus, plaintiff’s request for further
discovery (#22) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request to amend docket 22 is (#32) DENIED as moot.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Admit Evidence Attached as Exhibits in Plaintiff’s
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#25)

Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Admit Evidence Attached as Exhibits in Plaintiff’s Motion for
Opposition to Defendant’s Summary Judgment” (#25). Defendant opposed (#39). Plaintiff did not
reply. Plaintiff failed to provide any authority indicating the basis for this motion. Local Rule 7-2
provides that “failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion shall
constitute a consent to the denial of the motion.” Further, to the extent plaintiff’s motion responds
to arguments set forth in defendant’s reply, it is an improper sur-reply. Plaintiff’s motion to admit
evidence (#25) is DENIED.
3.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike “Objection to Defendant’s Reply in Support of
Plaintiffs Opposition to Summary Judgment” (#27)

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was fully briefed pursuant to Local Rule 7-2.
Nevertheless, plaintiff subsequently filed a document styled, “Objection to Defendants Reply” (#24).
This drew defendant’s motion to strike, which plaintiff did not oppose. Defendant’s motion to strike
(#27) is GRANTED because (1) the Court did not give plaintiff leave to file a supplemental
opposition, and (2) plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion to strike is deemed consent to the motion.
Local Rule 7-2(d). Plaintiff’s additional opposition (#24) is STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk