Deeds v. Aranas et al

Filing 94

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 1/6/2016, denying as moot Plaintiff's 81 Motion to Compel. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

RICHARD DEEDS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________)

3:14-cv-00138-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
January 6, 2016

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 Compel Production of Unredacted
Documents/Things: (1) Incident Report #2013-LCC-000542; (2) Recording of Institutional
Disciplinary Proceedings.” (ECF No. 81.) Plaintiff states these items are essential to his case. (Id.
at 1.) Defendants have responded. (ECF No. 86.) Defendants contend Plaintiff’s motion should be
denied because the items Plaintiff requests have been previously produced and have not been
redacted or edited. (Id. at 1.) No reply was filed by Plaintiff.
As to Plaintiff’s request for the unredacted incident report, Defendants state: “Plaintiff
assumes the report has been improperly redacted because portions of it are blank. This assumption
is incorrect. The incident report was downloaded by the Office of the Attorney General from the
NDOC’s NOTIS database” and the AG “does not have the ability to modify the report within the
system.” The report originally produced to Deeds (Exh. A to Defendants’ response, ECF No. 86-1)
is the same as it was when entered into the NOTIS database. Additionally, Defendants state the full
report would have been filled out if a formal investigation had been launched, but that did not occur.
(ECF No. 86, at 2.)
As to the request for unredacted recordings, Defendants’ response indicates the recordings
have been previously produced to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 86 at 3.) However, Defendants re-sent the
relevant recordings to Plaintiff to insure he has had the opportunity to review them (Exh C , ECF No.
86-3) and Plaintiff has had the ability to review them (Exh D, ECF No. 86-4). Defendants state

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:14-cv-00138-RCJ-WGC
Date: January 6, 2016
Page 2
what may have been confusing to Plaintiff is that both recordings “start with Defendant Donnelly
stating, ‘this is a continuation of disciplinary hearing’ and referencing an additional recording.
However there are no other recordings for this disciplinary hearing in NOTIS.” (Id. at 3, fn. 1.)
Thus, it appears to the court that Plaintiff has received the documents which were “essential
to his case.” Plaintiff did not reply to the Defendants response to his motion to compel with further
argument, but instead requested and received an extension from the court to respond to the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 90, 92.) The court therefore assumes that
Plaintiff is satisfied with the explanation provided by Defendants.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 81) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk