Ledesma v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 113

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 4/27/2015, denying in part 93 Motion to Compel. Defendants to comply with certain terms of this order within ten days. Please see attached for details. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

LUIS LEDESMA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
________________________________________)

3:13-cv-00102-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
April 27, 2015

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compell (sic) FRCP 37.” (Doc. # 93.) Defendants
have responded in a document entitled “Response to Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of
Documents and Discovery Pursuant to FRCP 34.” (Doc. # 103.)1 Plaintiff has replied. (Doc. # 106.)
Plaintiff’s discovery motion is not in compliance with the Local Rules. Local Rule 26-7
provides that “all motions to compel discovery...shall set forth in full the text of the discovery
originally sought and the response thereto, if any.” Plaintiff’s motion seemingly seeks a court order
to compel production of “privileged documents and other tangibles under seal,” (Doc. # 93 at 2.)
Plaintiff’s motion, however, provides no specific documentation to the court as to what the
underlying discovery request actually sought, what the response was and why it is objectionable. By
reason of Plaintiff’s failure to attach the disputed discovery responses, the court is left with an
interpretation of Defendants’ responsive argument and Plaintiff’s reply and for that reason, Plaintiff’s
motion (Doc. # 93) is DENIED IN PART, consistent with this Order. Nevertheless, the court will
still address what the court discerns from Defendants’ responsive memorandum and Plaintiff’s reply
as being the gravamen of this discovery dispute.
1)

Medical Records (Doc. # 103 at 1-2)
Plaintiff agrees that the appropriate procedure for him to review his medical records is to kite
the Warden’s Office, and therefore this contention is moot. (Doc. # 106 at 1.)

1

The court interprets Defendants’ response was meant to be an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel
in contrast to being a “response to discovery,” as it is titled. (Doc. # 103.)

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:13-cv-00102-MMD-WGC
Date: April 27, 2015
Page 2
2)

Inspector General Recordings (Doc. # 103 at 2)
Apparently one of Plaintiff’s requests for production were recordings of either an “IG
Investigation” or “Classification Review.” Defendants state that there are no “tapes responsive to this
request.” (Doc. # 103 at 2.) However, it appears that the Attorney General’s Office has also not yet
requested its clients to undertake a review to ascertain whether in fact such tapes exist. Nevertheless,
Defendants state that “if indeed such recordings exist, copies of same will be given to the Warden’s
Office and Plaintiff may kite for their review.” In view of Defendants’ representations, within
ten (10) days of this order, the Attorney General’s Office shall file a notice with the court advising
whether there are any tapes or recordings “responsive to this request” and if yes, confirming that
Plaintiff has been afforded an opportunity to listen to them.
3)

NDOC Employee Disciplinary Records (Doc. # 103 at 2)
Again, although the court does not have a copy of the formal request Plaintiff made in this
respect, it appears that Plaintiff was seeking disciplinary records “that allude (sic) inmate abuse
and/or misconduct towards the same.” (Doc. # 106 at 3.) A request for any and all disciplinary
records against NDOC officials in general would not be relevant to the issues at bar in this case and
would require the court to consider evidence extraneous to the allegations of Plaintiff’s action. At
best, the only relevant records would be, as Defendants admit, “whether any of the Defendants who
remain in this lawsuit have been disciplined for use of excessive force.” (Doc. # 103 at 2.) The
Defendants state that Plaintiff should have submitted an “interrogatory” to this effect; the court
disagrees. The discovery Plaintiff is apparently seeking should not be requested via an interrogatory,
but rather a request for production which, circumstantially, it appears Plaintiff has made.
Nevertheless, irrespective of whether the discovery is sought by means of an interrogatory or a
request for production, Defendants indicate they would make available to Plaintiff for review
employment records reflecting any Defendants’ disciplinary records for excessive force. (Doc. # 103
at 2.)
Therefore, also within ten (10) days of this order, Defendants’ counsel is directed to make
available to Plaintiff records “of the Defendants who remain in this lawsuit” who have “been
disciplined for use of excessive force,” if any, and file a notice of completion of review by Plaintiff
if such documents exist.
4)

Power of Attorney to Sloan Sexner
The Defendants are under no obligation to produce any records to an individual who
supposedly has a power of attorney for Plaintiff. With respect to this litigation, only an attorney
could receive such materials, or if proceeding pro se, the Plaintiff himself.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk