Moonin et al v. State of Nevada Department of Public Safety, Highway Patrol Division (NHP) et al

Filing 102

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' # 95 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling are DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' # 73 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and State of Nevada defendants' ## 37 , 87 Motions for Le ave to File Excess Pages are GRANTED nunc pro tunc. ORDERED that State of Nevada defendants' # 99 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/9/2013. (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
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

MATT MOONIN; DONN YARNALL; and
ERIK LEE,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. its
)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
)
HIGHWAY PATROL; LAS VEGAS
)
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; )
CITY OF LAS VEGAS; CLARK COUNTY; )
DOUG GILLESPIE, Sheriff; DAVE LEWIS; )
JOHN STEWART; KEVIN TICE; THOM
)
JACKSON; JIM PETERSON; WAYNE
)
PROSSER; CHARLES HAYCOX; BRIAN )
SANCHEZ; HUGH SHOOK; TODD
)
ELLISON; ERVIN RAAB; BEN LEONARD; )
LUIS ZAPATA; DONALD DICE; CHRIS
)
PERRY, individually and in his official
)
capacity; PAT GALLAGHER; GREG ZEIL; )
DALE JAEGER; MEL ENGLISH; TOM
)
HIGGINS; MARK RISPOLI; MAKOR K-9; )
DOES 1-9, inclusive, AND
)
CORPORATIONS 10-14,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:12-CV-00353-LRH-VCF
ORDER

23
24

Before the court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (#731) and State of

25

Nevada defendants’ Motions for Leave to File Excess Pages (##37, 87). Also before the court is

26
1

Refers to the court’s docket number.

1

State of Nevada defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (#99). Finally, Plaintiffs have

2

lodged objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order limiting discovery (#95), to which nearly all the

3

defendants have responded (#96), and Plaintiffs have replied (#97).

4

In light of the court’s Order granting various defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (#100),

5

Plaintiffs’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling are overruled. Plaintiffs seek discovery of

6

Fourth Amendment violations which they have no standing to remedy. The Magistrate Judge’s

7

ruling therefore correctly excluded discovery of these violations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)

8

(limiting discovery to matters relevant to subject of suit).

9
10
11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling
(#95) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (#73)

12

and State of Nevada defendants’ Motions for Leave to File Excess Pages (##37, 87) are

13

GRANTED nunc pro tunc.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that State of Nevada defendants’ Motion for Leave to File

15

Sur-Reply (#99) is DENIED as moot.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

DATED this 9th of May, 2013.

19
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2