Maestas v. State of Nevada ex rel et al

Filing 39

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Status Conference held on 3/16/2015 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lyynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Nicholas W. Maestas, In Pro Per (Telehpnically); Def Counsel: Charles W. Leh man, Esq.; FTR #: FTR; Time of Hearing: 10:00:00 23 - 10:45:39; Courtroom: 2. The court addresses several motions. The court directs Mr. Lehman to confirm that the third, fourth and fifth set of interrogatories as to defenda nt Wightman have been responded to. Responses to the aforementioned discovery requests shall be answered, verified and produced to Plaintiff no later than Friday, April 17, 2015. Furthermore, Mr. Lehman is directed to correlate what discove ry responses have been produced, verified and signed in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). Plaintiff's 23 motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part consistent with the discussions had today. Plaintiff's [3 3] request to strike Defendants' document (Doc. # 24 ) is DENIED. The court directs Mr. Lehman to further investigate the time period of the video footage already provided to Plaintiff and whether there is video footage available for th e time period that is being requested by Plaintiff. Mr. Lehman shall file a notice with the court once he has completed his research regarding the video footage. The notice shall be filed and any additional footage available shall be provided to Pl aintiff no later than Tuesday, March 31, 2015. Plaintiff shall be afforded the opportunity to resubmit a motion to compel if deemed appropriate to do so after review of any additional (if any) video footage. In view of the court previously vacating the deadline for filing dispositive motions as to all parties (Doc. # 27), Plaintiff's 29 motion for enlargement of time is MOOT. Plaintiff's two motions for the District Judge to reconsider order (Doc. ## 30 and 31) are WITHDRA WN. The court schedules a status conference for Wednesday, April 22, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., in Reno Courtroom 2 before Magistrate William G. Cobb. The dispositive motions deadline will remain vacated at this time and will be reestablished during the next status conference. The Office of the Attorney General shall arrange for the Plaintiff to be present by telephone and shall contact the courtroom administrator, Katie Lynn Ogden, at [phone], at least two (2) d ays prior to the hearing to advise her of the number where Plaintiff may be reached at the time of the hearing. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO) (Main Document 39 replaced on 3/18/2015 in light of the first page containing the wrong hearing date. The replaced document has been regenerated to all parties.) (KO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
NICHOLAS V. MAESTAS,

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

3:13-cv-00301-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
March 16, 2015

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

Katie Lynn Ogden

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

REPORTER:

FTR

Nicholas V. Maestas, Pro Se (Telephonically)

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

Charles W. Lehman , Esq.

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: Status Conference
10:00 a.m. Court convenes.
The court holds today’s hearing to address several motions.
Plaintiff advises the court that he is not in possession of all of his legal documents at this time
due to do an incident that took place within his cell concerning his cell-mate. Plaintiff represents
his legal paper work was seized on February 10, 2015, and has yet to be returned to him.
Deputy Attorney General Charles Lehman is directed to contact the Ely State Prison (“ESP”)
officials to inquire about Mr. Maestas’ legal documents and when they may be returned to him so
he can adequately litigate, and the court can fairly address, this matter.
The court first addresses Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. # 23). Plaintiff indicates in his
reply brief (Doc. # 38) that there is certain discovery that remains outstanding. Plaintiff contends
that defendant Matt Wightman has yet to respond to Request for Interrogatories [Set 3] (see
Doc. # 38, Exhibit D).
Mr. Lehman acknowledges that Defendants’ response brief to the motion to compel
(Doc. # 28) does not contain a copy of the production of the third set of interrogatories as to
1

Minutes of Proceedings
3:13-cv-00301-RCJ-WGC
March 16, 2015
defendant Wightman (or Wightman’s answers to such discovery).
After further discussion is had regarding Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the court and parties
agree it is unclear whether or not there are outstanding discovery requests to be responded to. The
court directs Mr. Lehman to confirm that the third, fourth and fifth set of interrogatories as to
defendant Wightman have been responded to. Responses to the aforementioned discovery requests
shall be answered, verified and produced to Plaintiff no later than Friday, April 17, 2015.
Furthermore, in light of some confusion regarding certain discovery responses, Mr. Lehman is
directed to correlate what discovery responses have been produced, verified and signed in
compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g).
The court briefly addresses Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. # 33) Defendants’ “Notice of
Compliance with Order (#22)” (Doc. # 24). The court advises the Plaintiff that under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), the court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court explains Plaintiff’s request to strike
Defendants’ document entitled “notice” is not considered a “pleading” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 7;
therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. # 33) is DENIED.
Although Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. # 33) is denied, the court next addresses the
substantive topic of Plaintiff’s motion relating to the production of video surveillance footage from
the alleged incident that is subject to this litigation. Plaintiff indicates the most recent video footage
produced to him is not that which he is seeking. Plaintiff indicates the video footage he contends
should be available would reveal images that supports his allegations in his complaint. Defendants’
counsel explains, to his knowledge, the video footage provided to Plaintiff is all that is available
from the Lovelock Correctional Center (“LCC”) of the alleged incident. However, because
Mr. Lehman has recently adopted this case as lead counsel and did not personally ask LCC for any
video footage, Mr. Lehman offers to confirm that the video footage provided is complete.
Mr. Lehman further explains that the video footage that has been produced to Plaintiff is the exact
video footage used in Plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing.
The court makes note for the record of the observation made by District Judge Jones in the
screening order (Doc. # 8), which states, “By this order, the defendants will have notice of the action
and the possibility that they have relevant evidence. If the evidence is destroyed, then plaintiff may
seek an inference that such evidence would have been favorable to him.”
After addressing with the parties the video footage, the court directs Mr. Lehman to further
investigate the time period of the video footage already provided to Plaintiff and whether there is
video footage available for the time period that is being requested by Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and
Defendants’ counsel agree that the pertinent time frame for the video footage from LCC, Unit 3(A),
2

Minutes of Proceedings
3:13-cv-00301-RCJ-WGC
March 16, 2015
is narrowed to June 3, 2012, from 7:00 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. Mr. Lehman shall file a notice with
the court once he has completed his research regarding the video footage. The notice shall be filed
and any additional footage available shall be provided to Plaintiff no later than Tuesday,
March 31, 2015. Plaintiff shall be afforded the opportunity to resubmit a motion to compel if
deemed appropriate to do so after review of any additional (if any) video footage.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. # 23) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part consistent with the discussions had today.
In view of the court previously vacating the deadline for filing dispositive motions as to all
parties (Doc. # 27), Plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time (Doc. # 29) is MOOT.
Plaintiff requests to withdraw his two separate objections filed on February 26, 2015, by
reason of the court’s orders during today’s hearing. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s two
motions for the District Judge to reconsider order (Doc. ## 30 and 31) are WITHDRAWN.
The court schedules a status conference for Wednesday, April 22, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. The
dispositive motions deadline will remain vacated at this time and will be reestablished during the
next status conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10:45 a.m. Court adjourns.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

3

/s/
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk