Maestas v. State of Nevada ex rel et al

Filing 45

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Status Conference held on 4/22/2015 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Nicholas V. Maestas, Pro Se (Telephonically); Def Counsel: Charles W. Lehman< /I>; FTR #: 10:05:24 a.m. - 10:20:03 a.m.; Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. The court addresses the status of certain supplemental discovery responses that were ordered to be produced during the previous status confere nce held on March 16, 2015 (Doc. # 39 ). Based upon Defendants' counsel's representations made today and reviewing Doc. ## 43 and 44 , the outstanding discovery issues from Plaintiff's 23 motion to compel have been satisfied and are resolved. Plaintiff shall contact the court after a meet and confer conference if he remains unsatisfied with the Defendants' supplemental responses. Plaintiff's 42 Objections to Magistrate Judges Order is WITHDRAWN pursua nt to the request of Plaintiff. The court reestablishes the following deadlines: Dispositive Motions: Friday, 5/29/2015 and Joint Pretrial Order: Tuesday, 6/30/2015. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - 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
April 22, 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
10:05 a.m. Court convenes.
The court addresses the status of certain supplemental discovery responses that were ordered
to be produced during the previous status conference held on March 16, 2015 (Doc. # 39).
Reviewing the record, the court indicates Defendants filed a Notice of Compliance with
Order [#39] (Doc. # 44), which contain responses and verifications to Plaintiff’s third, fourth, and
fifth sets of interrogatories. Mr. Maestas states he has not received the notice or the supplemental
responses as of today’s date. Deputy Attorney General Charles Lehman explains the responses were
mailed to plaintiff Maestas at Ely State Prison (“ESP”) on Friday, April 17, 2015, and it is possible
the responses have not reached ESP just yet.
Based upon the DAG Lehman’s representations, the court at this time is satisfied with
Defendants’ notice that the supplemental discovery responses are being produced to Plaintiff. The
court is further satisfied with Defendants’ representations that there are no other outstanding
interrogatories or verifications that need to be produced. Therefore, Plaintiff’s discovery requests
regarding outstanding interrogatories and verifications are resolved.
///
1

Minutes of Proceedings
3:13-cv-00301-RCJ-WGC
April 22, 2015
The court suggests if Plaintiff does not receive Defendants’ supplemental responses relatively
soon, Plaintiff should notify the court. However, if Plaintiff does receive the supplemental response
but is not satisfied with the content of those responses, he should first meet and confer with
Defendants’ counsel. Therefore, should the meet and confer conference not satisfy Plaintiff’s
concerns, he should then file a motion to compel for the court’s intervention.
The court next addresses the discovery dispute regarding video surveillance footage.
Defendants filed a separate notice regarding the investigation of surveillance footage
(Doc. # 43). Plaintiff Maestas indicates he has received Defendants’ notice regarding the
surveillance footage.
After discussion, the court states it is satisfied with the explanation of what video
surveillance footage is available and what footage is no longer available due to the purging or
deletion of temporary stored footage. Therefore, insofar there are any outstanding discovery disputes
regarding the availability of surveillance footage concerning the subject matter of this litigation, the
Defendants’ supplemental responses are adequate and responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery production
request.
The court next inquires about Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judges Orders
(Doc. # 42). Plaintiff agrees with the court’s observation that his concerns regarding Exhibit G have
been adequately addressed and finalized by the discussions had today. Plaintiff further indicates, in
light of Defendants’ counsel’s representations that supplemental responses have been mailed to him,
he no longer wishes to pursue any of the objections identified in his motion (Doc. # 42). In view of
Plaintiff’s statements and request to withdraw his objections entirely, Plaintiff’s Objections to
Magistrate Judges Orders (Doc. # 42) is WITHDRAWN.
The court next reestablishes the following deadlines:
Dispositive Motions: Friday, May 29, 2015, and
Joint Pretrial Order: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 - unless, in the event dispositive motions
are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until thirty (30)
days after decision of the dispositive motions or further order of the court.
Before adjourning today’s conference, DAG Lehman advises the court that he has verified
with ESP that Mr. Maestas’ legal documents have been returned to him and are in his possession.
Mr. Maestas confirms DAG Lehman’s representations are accurate.
///
2

Minutes of Proceedings
3:13-cv-00301-RCJ-WGC
April 22, 2015
Plaintiff Maestas and DAG Lehman confirm there are no further matters to address today;
court adjourns at 10:20 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

3

/s/
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk