Cross v. Jaeger et al

Filing 274

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 12/18/2015, denying Plaintiff's 266 Motion to Reopen the Discovery Requests. (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
December 18, 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:
This court’s Order (ECF No. 269)1 addressed Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Discovery
Requests. (ECF No. 266.) The Order stated the court was not inclined to reopen discovery with
regard to the Southern Desert Correctional Center OP 740 which was in effect in September 2011.
(ECF No. 269 at 5-6.) However, the court stated it needed additional information about which
version of SDCC OP 740 was previously provided to Plaintiff and ordered that by December 11,
2015:
(1) Defendant shall file a notice of the dates when the relevant version of
SDCC OP 740 was provided Plaintiff, along with supporting documents pertaining
thereto.
(2) Plaintiff shall file a notice of relevance of SDCC OP 740, including a
statement outlining
a) when he received the September 2011 version of SDCC OP 740;
b) what substantive distinction exists between the September 2011 an October 2011
versions of SDCC OP 740 and how those distinctions, if any, impact Plaintiff’s case;
and,
c) what specific new discovery Plaintiff proposes should be undertaken with respect to
SDCC OP 740.

1

Refers to court’s Electronic Case Filing number.

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:13-cv-00433-MMD-WGC
Date: December 18, 2015
Page 2
The Order also provided that the court would calendar a discovery conference on this case
after December 11, 2015.
The record in this matter reflects that Defendant Jaeger filed his Notice of Compliance with
the court’s order on December 10, 2015. (ECF No. 271.) Plaintiff, however, did not file a Notice
of Relevance, which leaves the court to believe Plaintiff agreed with the court that there was “little
substantive difference between SDCC OP 740 in effect in September 2011 versus that version which
followed.” Instead, Plaintiff again attempts to re-argue in his objection (ECF No. 273)2 the issue this
court has addressed and disposed of on multiple prior occasions, i.e., Sgt. Jaeger’s status as a shift
supervisor and his authority to respond to or address Plaintiff’s grievances. (see ECF No. 269 at 1-3.)
Judge Du has ruled similarly in (ECF No. 211 at 2-3.)
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the discovery requests (ECF No. 269) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

2

/s/
Deputy Clerk

This court is addressing Plaintiff’s filing only to the extent it constitutes, if at all, a substantive response
to this court’s order of November 30, 2015 (ECF No. 269). This court is not addressing the merits, if any, of
Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 273).