Webb v. Weber County Government et al

Filing 144

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 99 Motion in Support of 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Authority Setting Forth Specific Facts That Would be Admissible in Evidence in the Event of a Trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/16/14. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID WEBB,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION

v.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00128-DB-DBP

TIMOTHY SCOTT, et al.,

District Judge Dee Benson

Defendants.

I.

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

INTRODUCTION

This civil rights matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Court
now considers Plaintiff’s “Motion in Support of 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Authority Setting
Forth Specific Facts That Would be Admissible in Evidence in the Event of a Trial.” (Docket
No. 99.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion.
II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN SUPPORT OF TENTH CIRCUIT AUTHORITY
SETTING FORTH SPECIFIC FACTS THAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE IN THE EVENT OF TRIAL

On February 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed this motion to ask the Court to deny any future
summary judgment motions filed by Defendants. (Dkt. No. 99 at 3.) To that end, Plaintiff
moved to make several motions, exhibits, and discovery documents “part of the Court Record as
a Pre-Emptive Strike against” Defendants’ future summary judgment motions. (Id. at 1.)

Page 1 of 2

Plaintiff claimed these motions, exhibits, and discovery documents “conclusively support[ed]”
his complaint and “would be admissible in the event of Trial . . . .” (Id.)
Both the Ogden City Defendants and the Weber County Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s
motion as premature because he brought it before they had filed any summary judgment motions.
(Dkt. Nos. 105-106.)
The Court agrees with Defendants’ oppositions. Plaintiff’s motion does not seek any
discernable relief where it is essentially a premature opposition memorandum masquerading as a
motion. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. (Dkt. No. 99.)
If Plaintiff wishes to oppose any summary judgment motions filed by Defendants, he should
wait until Defendants have actually filed such motions. Thereafter, Plaintiff may file oppositions
to such motions that comply with DUCivR 7-1(b)(2)(A) and DUCivR 56-1(c).
III.

ORDERS

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion in support of Tenth
Circuit authority setting forth specific facts that would be admissible in evidence in the event of
trial. (Dkt. No. 99.)
Dated this 16th day of April, 2014.

By the Court:

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2