Proctor v. Van Horn et al

Filing 144

ORDER denying 143 Motion for Production of Video Tapes. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 10/9/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

CHARLES JUAN PROCTOR,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DR. VAN HORN, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
______________________________________)

3:12-cv-00328-MMD-WGC
ORDER
re ECF No. 143

14
15

Before the court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Production of Video Tapes in My Living Unit’s

16

Cameras, on September 23, 2015.” (ECF No. 143.)1 Also before the court are two accompanying

17

declarations. (ECF Nos. 141 and 142.) Because the parties’ Joint Pretrial Order is due on October 12,

18

2015, the court will address Plaintiff’s motion and accompanying declarations prior to Defendants

19

responding.

20

Plaintiff’s motion seeks production of Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC) video tapes

21

which he states will show that Jon Perry, an NNCC Director of Nursing, came to Plaintiff’s cell. Perry

22

allegedly made a proposal to Plaintiff about his receiving surgery in consideration of Plaintiff’s

23

abandoning certain monetary claims of relief associated with his lawsuit. Plaintiff seeks production of

24

not only the tapes which he claims would show the Perry visit, but also other video tapes of the same

25

time period. Plaintiff claims the videos would support his claim of Perry’s offer. (ECF No. 143 at 2.)

26

///

27

///

28
1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

First, the court fails to see how the tapes, if such were even available, would confirm the alleged

2

settlement proposal. At most, the tapes would show Perry in the vicinity of Plaintiff’s cell. There is no

3

indication the tapes would include audio recordings. What Perry did or did not say would not be

4

contained in video tapes.

5

Secondly, the settlement proposal, assuming it was made, came from Jon Perry, a non-party.

6

Plaintiff fails to connect how the discussion would be relevant to his claims as against Defendants

7

Gleason and/or Van Horn. According to District Judge Miranda Ma. Du’s Order adopting this court’s

8

Report and Recommendation, the claims which survived summary judgment and which were allowed

9

to proceed against these Defendants were:

10

(1)

Claims against Defendant Gleason “related to her responses to Plaintiff’s kites in

11

October, November and December 2011 and the delay in Plaintiff being seen regarding

12

his complaints of pain during that time”; and,

13

(2)

Claims against Dr. Van Horn “related to Plaintiff’s kites in October, November and

14

December 2011 and the delay in Plaintiff being seen regarding his complaints of pain

15

during that time.”

16

(ECF No. 117 at 3; emphasis added.)

17

Although Plaintiff attempts to demonstrate the relevance between NDOC response time to certain

18

other kites (ECF No. 141), the court cannot discern the connection between NDOC’s response to other

19

kites to the subject of this litigation.

20

The relevance of the September 23, 2015 videos to Plaintiff’s causes of action against Defendants

21

Gleason and Van Horn thereof is absent. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 143) is DENIED. Defendants are

22

not obligated to produce the requested videos to Plaintiff.2

23

This order does not extend to whether Plaintiff can offer testimony at trial as to the alleged Perry

24

conversations or even whether Plaintiff may subpoena to trial the records custodian who might have

25

possession of the videos. Those issues are subject to Judge Du’s discretion when evaluating the parties’

26
27
28

2

Indeed, it is doubtful the Defendants in this action, Gleason (dental technician) and Van Horn (dentist), would even
have access to the requested videos, as each is in the field of health services and not security, supervision or surveillance.

2

1

Joint Pretrial Order and/or at trial.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED: October 9, 2015

4

___________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3