Johnson v. Cox et al

Filing 41

ORDER - Plaintiff's ## 31 , 32 Motions to compel are DENIED. Accordingly, Defendants' counter motions for extension of time and to strike Plaintiff's motions to compel (# 37 at 1-4, 6 and 5-7) are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 4/1/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JAMES GREG COX, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________)

3:14-cv-00213-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
April 1, 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 are Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compell (sic) Defendants to Submit Documents
in Camera” (Doc. # 31) and Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery “ (Doc. # 32).
Defendants have responded to both motions in a single filing (Doc. # 37)1 and Plaintiff has replied
(Doc. # 39).
Plaintiff failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that he adequately conferred
with opposing counsel and also failed to provide accurate and satisfactory certification that he was
unable to resolve the matter without court action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and LR 26-7(b).
Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Progressive Games, Inc., 170 FRD 166, 170 (D.C. Nev. 1996) (certification
must “accurately and specifically convey to the court who, where, how and when the respective
parties attempted to personally resolve the discovery dispute.”) While the court does not expect an
inmate to meet with opposing counsel, the court expects–and insists–that the inmate litigant
communicate with counsel in an earnest attempt to resolve the discovery dispute.2
However, even if Plaintiff’s motions were not subject to the “meet & confer” infirmity,
Plaintiff’s motions should be denied on substantive grounds, as the court will now address.
1

Defendants’ “collective opposition” includes, alternatively, a motion for extension of time to respond to
Plaintiff’s motions to compel (Doc. # 37 at 1-4, 6) and also a motion to strike Plaintiff’s two motions to compel (id.,
at 5-7).
2

The court takes note Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel in Johnson v.
N. Young, et al., 3:14-cv-00178-RCJ-VPC (Doc. # 26), also by reason of Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the “meet and
confer” requirements of Fed. R. Civ P. 37 and LR 26-7(b).

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:14-cv-00213-RCJ-WGC
Date: April 1, 2015
Page 2
Doc. # 31:
Although Plaintiff in this motion failed to include the full text of the discovery requests and
responses as required by LR 26-7(a), as the court interprets his discovery issues, they are without
merit in any event.
As to item 1, i.e., a request that he be provided selected medical records of which Plaintiff
seeks production, the court has long deferred to Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) policy
of requiring an inmate to “kite” to see his medical records and not be allowed to possess them in his
cell.
As to item 2, other inmate claims of alleged sexual molestation, etc., as against Dr. Koehn
are irrelevant to whether the Plaintiff’s allegations against Dr. Koehn did or did not occur. Even if
other similar complaints were made, such would require the court to, in essence, conduct “mini
trials” as to each inmate’s assertions, claims which would likely be inadmissible at trial in any event
(as they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence). Additionally,
requiring Dr. Koehn to undertake a review of “any and all kites, grievances, investigation reports and
cases filed against ESP Dr. Michael Koehn” to extract any claims or assertions which might have
averred molestation would likely be a Herculean undertaking and burdensome on Defendant Koehn,
who presumably has seen hundreds if not thousands of inmates over the years and in turn has been
the subject of inmate complaints, both formal and informal..
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs the scope of discovery in civil actions, and
provides in pertinent part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense-including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and
location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court
may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Accordingly, the first limitation on permissible discovery is that it be relevant. See, e.g.,
Dowell v. W.T. Griffin, 275 F.R.D. 613, 617 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011) (stating that the court must
first address whether the requested documents are relevant before discussing other discovery
contentions). Relevance “has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that
reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.”
Oppehnheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 1978 (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S.
495, 501 (1947)). As discussed above, any complaints, kites, grievances, claims, etc., other inmates
may have made against Dr. Koehn are irrelevant as to whether Dr. Koehn allegedly sexually abused
Plaintiff.

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:14-cv-00213-RCJ-WGC
Date: April 1, 2015
Page 3
Doc. # 32:
In this filing, Plaintiff seeks the production of essentially the same materials sought in Doc.
# 31, albeit with better documentation. However, the court’s conclusions as to Doc. # 32 are the
same as set forth with respect to Doc. # 31.
Defendants’ Opposition (Doc. # 37):
Defendants’ opposition mainly addresses whether Plaintiff adequately satisfied the meet and
confer preconditions of Rule 37(a) and LR 26-7(b). Defendants sought additional time to respond
to the substance of Plaintiff’s motions to compel, if necessary. Because the court has found Plaintiff
did not satisfy the “meet and confer” precondition, and as discussed below, because this court also
finds Plaintiff’s substantive arguments to be without merit, there is no need for this court to require
Defendants to submit additional memoranda on the discovery issue.
Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum (Doc. # 39):
Plaintiff’s 191 page reply memorandum adds nothing substantively to the merits, if any, of
his motions to compel. Many of his numerous exhibits were copies of document from other cases
Plaintiff has litigated. For Example, Exhibit A is a complaint from a Southern Division civil rights
action, 2:13-cv-00100-JAD-GWF, Johnson v. Lawrance, et al. Included among Exhibit B are copies
of discovery responses from Johnson v. Young, et al., 3:14-cv-00178-RCJ-VPC, and from Johnson v.
Little, 2:14-cv-00649-RFB-VCF. Exhibit C is a copy of NDOC AR 722. Exhibit D consists of filings
from a Clark County, Nevada, habeas corpus action. Exhibits E and F are grievances, mostly as to
matters unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims herein. (See, Doc. # 16, Screening Order.) Exhibit G seems
to pertain to copy work requests. The remaining exhibits (H, I, J and K) are similarly unrelated to
his allegations in the instant matter and bring little if anything to the table regarding the pending
discovery dispute. None of the exhibits contained in Plaintiff’s reply memorandum persuade the
court there is any merit to Plaintiff’s motions to compel.
Plaintiff’s motions to compel (Docs. ## 31, 32) are DENIED. Accordingly, Defendants’
counter motions for extension of time and to strike Plaintiff’s motions to compel (Doc. # 37 at 1-4,
6 and 5-7) are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk