England v. Baca et al
Filing
29
ORDER DENYING P's # 25 Motion to Compel. The component of Plaintiffs # 27 Motion which seeks an order for depositions is DENIED; to the extent Plaintiff's # 27 Motion may be interpreted as a request to extend the discovery deadline, Plaintiff's # 27 Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 4/28/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
WILLIAM ENGLAND,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ISIDRO BACA, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________)
3:14-cv-00189-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
April 28, 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:
Motion to Compel (Doc. # 25)
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery. (Doc. # 25.)
Defendants have responded. (Doc. # 26.) No reply was filed. Plaintiff’s motion did not attach the
discovery responses to which he has an objection. Local Rule 26-7(a), which provides that “All
motions to compel discovery or for protective order shall set forth in full the text of the discovery
sought and the response thereto, if any.”
Plaintiff motion pertains to four questions contained in his Request for Production wherein
he sought production of certain information from Defendants Stogner, Walsh, Baca and Dreesen
concerning Ramadan and certain Islamic religious activities. Plaintiff states he served his first
request for production of documents on January 20, 2015, and not having heard from Defendants,
sent a letter to counsel for the Defendants on February 17, 2015. (Doc. # 25 at 1-2.) Plaintiff
followed up his request with a letter to counsel seeking the exact same information on February 17,
2015 (id., at 3). Plaintiff produced a copy of his discovery request (id., at 4-6) and his February 17
letter (id., at 7-9.) Plaintiff now seeks sanctions be entered for Defendants’ refusal to answer his
discovery. (Id., at 3.)
///
MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:14-cv-00189-MMD-WGC
Date: April 28, 2015
Page 2
Defendants’ opposition argues that although Plaintiff’s discovery was dated January 20,
2015, Defendants did not receive the discovery until February 23, 2015, and that three days later on
February 26, 2015, they received Plaintiff’s letter concerning the status of his discovery. (Doc. # 26
at 1.) Defendants state this is documented by Exhibit A, a copy of Plaintiff’s discovery, date
stamped “Feb. 23, 2015" and Exhibit B, Plaintiff’s letter, date stamped Feb. 26, 2015, which was
attached to Defendants’s opposition. Defendants submit they wrote to Plaintiff requesting a thirty
day extension to provide responses from February 23, 2015, but did not receive any objection to such
from Plaintiff. Defendants state they provided their responses on March 17, 2015. (Id., at 1-2;
Exhibits A, B and C (id., at 26-1).)
Plaintiff did not file a reply to his motion. Because neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants
submitted a copy of their responses to the requests for production, the court is unclear what exactly
it is that Plaintiff disputes. In accordance with Local Rule 26-7(a), Plaintiff’s motion to compel
(Doc. # 25) is DENIED.
Motion for Depositions (Doc. # 27)
Also before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Depositions. (Doc. # 27.) Plaintiff seeks to
depose Defendants Isidro Baca, Frank Dreesen, James Stogner and Lisa Walsh. (Id., at 1.) The
Defendants have filed a limited objection. (Doc. # 28.) Defendants state they have no opposition to
Plaintiff conducting depositions. However, to the extent Plaintiff may be seeking to have the
Defendants or the Office of the Attorney General incur the expense or otherwise facilitate Plaintiff’s
depositions, Defendants state it is not their responsibility to do so. (Id. at 1-2.)
Plaintiff represents he is submitting the motion for depositions “because [the defendants]
have not been forthright in my request for production of document.” (Id.) Although Plaintiff admits
the Defendants produced documents responsive to his requests, he states the Defendants refused to
produce “any and all documents Plaintiff have requested in order for him to start his Interrogatories.”
Plaintiff submits the scheduling order may also need to be adjusted. Therefore, the court also
interprets Plaintiff’s motion for depositions as a motion for an extension of the discovery deadline.
With regard to the component of Plaintiff's motion pertaining to taking depositions, Plaintiff's
motion - submitted after the discovery deadline has expired – is untimely. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30,
Plaintiff does not need leave of court to notice depositions. However, Plaintiff would also have to
satisfy other requirements of the Rule, such as serving a subpoena with the appropriate witness fees
and expenses and arranging for a time and place for the depositions, logistics for which would
probably have to be coordinated with the Nevada Department of Corrections. The component of
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 27) which seeks an order for depositions is DENIED.
///
MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:14-cv-00189-MMD-WGC
Date: April 28, 2015
Page 3
With regard to the discovery deadline issue, the court's Scheduling Order established a
deadline of April 6, 2015; any motions to extend the discovery deadline were to be received not less
than twenty (20) days before the deadline. (Doc. # 20.) Plaintiff's motion is dated April 7, 2015, the
day after the deadline for completion of discovery and about three weeks after the deadline for
requesting an extension of the discovery deadline. Other than the depositions Plaintiff now seeks
to take, Plaintiff does not set forth what discovery remains which he was unable to complete and why
it was not completed. To the extent Plaintiff's motion may be interpreted as a request to extend the
discovery deadline, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. # 27) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:
/s/
Deputy Clerk
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?