Cross v. Jaeger et al

Filing 220

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 9/4/2015, directing Clerk not to issue the 216 subpoenas. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ANTHONY CROSS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RON JAEGER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
________________________________________)

3:13-cv-00433-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
September 4, 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 a letter Plaintiff Anthony Cross submitted to Lance Wilson, Clerk of
the U.S. District Court. (Doc. # 216). The letter requests the clerk's office to issue five
"Notice[s] of Intent to Service Subpoena Duces Tecum." The letter and what the court interprets
as being subpoenas to Sheryl Foster, Deputy Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections
(NDOC); Brian Williams, Jr., Warden of Southern Desert Correction Center; Adam Paul Laxalt,
Attorney General of the State of Nevada; and Deputy Attorney General Benjamin R. Johnson
have been logged as Docs. ## 216-1, 216-2; 216-3, 216-4 and 216-5. The subpoenas purport to
require production of documents in response to the subpoenas but which carry more of the
characteristics of interrogatories. The subpoenas plaintiff requests are not trial subpoenas and no
trial has been set in this matter.
Irrespective of what the documents may be seeking, Plaintiff's letter and the proposed
subpoenas are merely a disguised attempt by Plaintiff to circumvent this court's multiple prior
orders that discovery has been completed in this matter and the court will not again extend the
discovery deadline. See Doc, # 168 at 6, Minutes of Proceedings wherein the court denied
Plaintiff's motion (Doc. # 145) to extend the discovery deadline; Doc. # 193, a Minute Order of
this court denying Plaintiff's motion to extend the scope of discovery requests (Doc. # 183); an
Order of the Court (Doc. # 199) denying Plaintiff's Request for Leave to Serve Upon the
Defendant a third set of Request for Documents and Information (Doc. # 194); and Doc. # 201, a

Minute Order of this court denying Plaintiff's motion to allow him to serve a supplement to his
Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents (Doc. # 200). The court’s Order in Doc.
# 199 thoroughly explained the court’s rationale as to why no further discovery is appropriate in
this case and the court is not inclined to change its mind in this respect.
The Clerk is directed not to issue the subpoenas contained in # 216.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk