Leonard v. Baker et al

Filing 87

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 4/10/2017, denying as moot ECF No. 59 Motion to Extend Time; denying ECF No. 64 Motion to Strike; deeming withdrawn ECF No. 68 Motion for Injunctive Relief; denying ECF No. 80 Motion for Reasonable Opportunity for Discovery. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
WILLIAM LEONARD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________
PRESENT:

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:15-cv-00275-MMD-VPC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
April 10, 2017

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court are several motions: ECF Nos. 59, 64, 68, and 80.
On December 21, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 53).
Plaintiff’s opposition was due by January 11, 2017. On January 3, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion
for enlargement of time to respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 59).
However, plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 61), on
January 6, 2017, five days before it was due. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of
time (ECF No. 59) is DENIED as moot.
On January 12, 2017, plaintiff moved to strike a portion of defendants’ motion for
summary judgment relating to “urine dip stick test results” on the grounds that it misleads the
court and defendants fail to provide an expert witness to support the evidence. (ECF No. 64 at
2.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the court may strike “any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Having thoroughly reviewed the relevant portion
of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court does not find the it to be misleading or
“redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Accordingly,
plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 64) is DENIED.
On January 23, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 68). On
February 9, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice that he was no longer requesting injunctive relief (ECF
No. 78). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF NO. 68) is deemed
WITHDRAWN.
1

On March 3, 2017, plaintiff filed a “motion for reasonable opportunity for discovery”
(ECF No. 80). Defendants responded (ECF No. 84) and plaintiff replied (ECF No. 86). In
plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 80), he argues that he has not be afforded a reasonable opportunity
for discovery and asks that the court wait to decide the motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
53) until he has this opportunity. (ECF No. 80 at 13-14.) The only legal basis plaintiff provides
the court in support of his motion is a cite to Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986),
which states “A motion for summary judgment is to be considered after adequate time for
discovery.” (Id. at 14.) The court construes plaintiff’s motion as a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(d) motion. Under FRCP Rule 56(d), the movant is required to show that, “for
specified reasons, [he] cannot present facts essential to justify [his] opposition.” Given that
plaintiff filed a 131-page opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment nearly two
months before filing the instant motion, the court doubts plaintiff will be unable to present facts
essential to his opposition. Further, plaintiff has not shown that the requested discovery is
essential to justify his opposition. Accordingly, plaintiff’s “motion for reasonable opportunity
for discovery” (ECF No. 80) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEBRA K. KEMPI, CLERK

BY:

/s/
Deputy Clerk