Burton v. Fonseca

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 kee 4 || TROYLETTE BURTON, et. a/., Case No. 3:20-CV-00190-ART-CLB 9 Plaintiffs ORDER GRANTING COUNTERMOTION 6 TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 7 || MOISES FONSECA, et al., SUMMARY JUDGMENT 8 Defendants. [ECF No. 87] 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Troylette Burton, Thayer Burton, and Troylette 11 || Burton as Administrator of the Estate of Thayer Joseph Burton’s (collectively referred to 12 || as “Plaintiffs”) countermotion to strike documents in support of Defendants’ Moises 13 || Fonseca, Robert Smith, and Isidro Baca (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) motion 14 || for summary judgment. (ECF No. 87.) Plaintiffs argue that Exhibit 2 to the motion for 15 || summary judgment, which is an unredacted offender summary report, should be stricken 16 || as the unredacted version was not produced in discovery. (/d. at 15.) In response, 17 || defense counsel concedes that Exhibit 2 should be stricken from use in the support of 18 || summary judgment and any responses. (ECF No. 91 at 9-10.) 19 Accordingly, Exhibit 2 to the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 84-2) is 20 || STRICKEN from the record. See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 21 || 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (district courts have authority to strike an improper filing under their 22 || inherent power to control the docket). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || DATE: June 20, 2023 25 *

26 ured erArEs MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28