David Holmes v. Jason Reusch, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01138
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 David Holmes, Case No. 2:24-cv-01138-GMN-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Jason Reusch, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before this Court are eight motions by pro se Plaintiff: motion to strike Defendants’ 11 discovery responses (ECF No. 149), motion to compel internal affairs report (ECF No. 152), 12 motions for judicial notice (ECF Nos. 153, 163, 187), and motions to supplement (ECF Nos. 169, 13 170, 171). These motions are fully briefed.1 The parties are familiar with the arguments, so this 14 Court will only incorporate them as necessary and relevant to its order. For the reasons discussed 15 below, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied in part, and his remaining motions are denied in full. 16 I. DISCUSSION 17 A. Motion to Strike 18 First, Plaintiff moves to strike the City Defendants’2 discovery responses as untimely 19 because Plaintiff mailed the requests on October 6, 2025, and received the responses on 20 December 24, 2025. ECF No. 149 at 1. Plaintiff also argues that some of the responses were 21 22 23 1 This is true apart from ECF No. 187. Defendants have yet to respond because the response 24 deadline has not passed. However, this Court can resolve the motion without further briefing 25 given its similarity to Plaintiff’s other motions for judicial notice. 2 The City Defendants consist of Jason Reusch, Loren Cooley, City of North Las Vegas, Marcus 26 Cook, Octavio Murillo-Pinedo, Officer Chasity Smith, Officer Coby Simpson, Officer Daniel 27 Krivak, Officer Jennifer Miller, Officer Jordan Beinke, Officer Nicholas Harris, Officer Robert Sherburne, Officer Ruben Nunez, Officer Walter Batarina, Officer William Bull, and Spencer 1 unsigned or not received. Id. Plaintiff similarly argues that the Dotty’s Defendants’3 responses 2 were untimely because he sent the requests on October 30, 2025, and did not receive responses 3 until December 23, 2025. Id. at 2. 4 As to Defendants Reusch and Cooley, Plaintiff argues that their responses to the first set 5 of admissions was not signed or notarized, and this defect went uncorrected for five months. Id. at 6 3–4. Plaintiff further argues that he has not received Defendant Reusch and Cooley’s responses to 7 the second requests for admissions. Id. 8 As to Defendant Cook, Plaintiff argues that he has not received responses to the first set of 9 admissions for 48 days. Id. at 4. 10 As to Defendants Smith, Batarina, Kinney, Sherburne, Miller, Krivak, Plaintiff argues that 11 their responses to the first set of admissions were untimely (received on January 12, 2026) and 12 had no signatures. Id. at 4–5. 13 As to Defendants Murillo-Pineda, Bienke, and Bull, Plaintiff argues their interrogatories 14 and first set of admissions were untimely and lacked signatures. Id. at 5–6. He does not state 15 whether he eventually received the responses. 16 As to Defendant Simpson, Plaintiff argues that his responses to the first set of 17 interrogatories and admissions were received over 18 days late and had no signature. Id. at 6–7. 18 As to Defendant Nunez, Plaintiff argues that his responses to the first set of interrogatories 19 and admissions were ignored for over 18 days. Id. at 6–7. 20 As to Defendant Harris, Plaintiff argues that his responses to the first set of admissions 21 and interrogatories were untimely (received on January 12, 2026) and had no signature. Id. at 7. 22 As to Defendant City of North Las Vegas, Plaintiff argues that the response to the first 23 request for production has had no signature since July 7, 2025. Id. at 8. He further argues that the 24 response to the second request for production was over 20 days late. Id. 25 26

27 33 The Dotty’s Defendants consist of Nevada Restaurant Services Inc., d/b/a Dotty’s, Richard 1 As to Defendant North Las Vegas Police Department, Plaintiff argues that the first set of 2 interrogatories and admissions have had no signature since August 2025. Id. at 8. He further 3 argues that responses to the second set of interrogatories and admissions were over 30 days late. 4 Id. 5 As to Defendant Dotty’s, Plaintiff argues that the responses to the first set of 6 interrogatories, admissions, and requests for production were over 10 days late and contained no 7 signature. Id. As to Defendants Estey and Scarale, Plaintiff argues that their responses to the first 8 set of interrogatories and admissions were over 10 days late (received December 23, 2025) and 9 were unsigned. Id. at 9. 10 The City Defendants responded that all responses, apart from Defendants Nunez and 11 Pineda, were timely because Plaintiff misstated the day he mailed the requests (i.e., Plaintiff dated 12 the discovery November 4, 2025, but mailed them on November 13 and 20, 2025). ECF No. 157 13 at 2. The City Defendants state that Defendant Nunez’s responses were sent on December 23, 14 2025, and Defendant Pineda’s were sent on January 12, 2026, because counsel was unable to get 15 in touch with him earlier. Id. The City Defendants argue that Plaintiff should have filed a motion 16 to compel, which would be moot because all the responses have been sent. They further argue 17 that this round of discovery was voluminous—in excess of 20 sets of discovery. Id. The City 18 Defendants further explain that they responded to the requests sent to Defendants Cooley and 19 Reusch. Id. at 3 (citing Ex. A). They further argue that Defendant Cook’s discovery responses 20 were timely because Plaintiff did not send those requests until January 30, 2026. Id. (citing Ex. 21 B). The City Defendants did not address Plaintiff’s argument about unsigned responses. 22 The Dotty’s Defendants responded that the responses were timely under the mailbox rule 23 because the operative date under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5 and 6 is the date of mailing, 24 not the date when Plaintiff drafted his requests. ECF No. 156 at 2–4. They attached exhibits in 25 support of these statements. ECF Nos. 156-1–156-9. The Dotty’s Defendants further responded 26 that all their discovery responses were properly signed, except for Defendant Estey’s, which was 27 promptly signed ten days later—and before Plaintiff even noticed the unsigned response. Id. 1 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A), and 36(a)(3), a party 2 responding to interrogatories, requests for production (“RFPs”), and requests for admissions 3 (“RFAs”) must serve their answers, responses, and objections within 30 days of being served with 4 those discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A), 36(a)(3). Failure to object to Rule 5 33 interrogatories or Rule 34 RFAs within 30 days after being served generally results in the 6 waiver of any objections. Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 7 (9th Cir. 1992); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). In addition, a matter is deemed admitted if the 8 responding party fails to serve a written answer or objection to RFAs within 30 days of service. 9 Conlon v. U.S., 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Courts retain 10 discretion to excuse a late-responding party from waiver “for good cause” or when “special 11 situations require it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); see Liguori v. Hansen, No. 2:11-CV-00492-GMN, 12 2012 WL 760747, at *11 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). Fed. R. Civ. P. 36, advisory committee’s note 13 to 1970 amendment. 14 As to the mailbox rule, Rule 5(b)(2)(c) provides that “[a] paper is served under this rule 15 by: mailing it to the person's last known address—in which event service is complete upon 16 mailing.” To complement this, Rule 6 provides that “[w]hen a party may or must act within a 17 specified time after being served and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) (mail) . . . 3 days are 18 added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 19 Regarding signatures, “every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by 20 at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s own name . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). In 21 addition, Rule 33 provides that, for interrogatories, “[t]he person who makes the answers must 22 sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5). 23 While these responses must be signed under oath, notarization is not strictly required. See Fed. R. 24 Civ. P. 33(b)(3). “Other parties have no duty to act on an unsigned disclosure, request, response, 25 or objection until it is signed, and the court must strike it unless a signature is promptly supplied 26 after the omission is called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(2). 27 Here, this Court cannot verify whether the City Defendants’ discovery responses were 1 Defendants or when they responded to the requests. Plaintiff argues that he mailed the requests on 2 October 6, 2025, and the City Defendants argue that he mailed the requests on November 13th and 3 20th. While the City Defendants attach Defendant Cooley and Reusch’s responses to the first set 4 of requests for admissions and interrogatories (Ex. A), this fails to address Plaintiff’s arguments 5 that he has not received their responses to the second set of requests for admissions and 6 interrogatories. For Defendant Cook, Exhibit B shows that the discovery requests were mailed on 7 January 30, 2026. Thus, Plaintiff’s statement that the responses were “48 days late” (as of January 8 21, 2026) is incorrect—he had not even mailed the requests at that point. The City Defendants do 9 not address Plaintiff’s arguments regarding unsigned discovery responses, and again, this Court 10 does not have the responses to verify whether they were signed, or when. Without more 11 information, this Court is unable to decide the motion as to the City Defendants (apart from 12 Defendant Cook). 13 As to the Dotty’s Defendants, this Court finds that they timely responded based on the 14 attached exhibits. The envelopes show that Plaintiff’s requests were mailed to the Dotty’s 15 Defendants on November 24, 2025. ECF No. 156-1. All responses were signed and dated by 16 December 24, 2025—within the 30-day period—and are timely. ECF Nos. 156-2–156-9. While 17 Defendant Estey’s interrogatory responses were not verified by him until January 5, 2026, this 18 was only 10 days late and corrected before Plaintiff filed his motion. Because Defendant Estey 19 promptly corrected the error, this Court will not strike it under Rule 26(g)(2). 20 In sum, this Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to strike as to the Dotty’s Defendants and 21 Defendant Cook. It reserves ruling on the motion to strike regarding the remaining Defendants. 22 The City Defendants must file a supplement that includes verification of the dates Plaintiff mailed 23 the discovery requests and copies of the City Defendants’ responses to those discovery requests. 24 B. Motion to Compel Internal Affairs Report 25 Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant North Las Vegas Police Department to produce a 26 copy of the internal affairs report regarding the investigation of the incident subject to this 27 lawsuit. ECF No. 152 at 2–5. The City Defendants respond that the motion should be denied 1 contend is insufficient under Local Rule IA 1-3(f). ECF No. 159 at 2. The City Defendants further 2 respond that the motion to compel is moot because they are concurrently producing the 3 documents sought by Plaintiff. Id. at 3. 4 First, this Court clarifies that Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer letter was sufficient under the 5 Local Rules. Local Rule IA 1-3(f)(1) states as follows: “The requirement to meet and confer face- 6 to-face or via telephonic or video conference does not apply in the case of an incarcerated 7 individual appearing pro se, in which case the meet-and-confer requirement may be satisfied 8 through written communication.” Here, Plaintiff is pro se and incarcerated at Three Lakes Valley 9 Conservation Camp. His letter was sufficient to satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement. Second, 10 based on the City Defendants’ representations that they are currently producing/have produced 11 the documents sought, this Court will deny the motion to compel as moot and without prejudice. 12 C. Motions for Judicial Notice 13 Plaintiff has filed three motions for judicial notice. ECF Nos. 153, 163, 187. He moves the 14 Court to judicially notice various discovery exhibits, including “a copy of the NLVPD Police 15 Report [that] proves all the Defendants came together to affirmative[ly] misrepresent and 16 stonewall the plaintiff from the truth,” public records that prove “Defendants violat[ed] Plaintiff’s 17 Due Process under [the] Fifth Amendment,” and a NLVPD report that “shows Officer Loren 18 Cooley committing perjury along with the false statements and affirmative[] misrepresentation 19 and fraudulent concealment to prejudice Plaintiff from obtaining facts about his cause of action.” 20 ECF No. 153 at 1; ECF No. 163 at 5; ECF No. 187 at 2–3. 21 A court may take judicial notice of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute” because they 22 are either “(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of 23 accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 24 questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201. The Ninth Circuit has noted that a court may take “judicial notice 25 of matters of public record,” but “cannot take judicial notice of disputed facts contained in such 26 public records.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation 27 and quotations omitted). Grants of judicial notice are a matter of judicial discretion. See United 1 Here, Plaintiff seeks to judicially notice documents that are clearly subject to reasonable 2 dispute. While Plaintiff may view the documents as proof of Defendants’ alleged violations, this 3 Court has reviewed the documents and determined they are subject to varying interpretations. See 4 Khoja, 899 F.3d at 999. Plaintiff should think carefully about filing these types of motions in the 5 future. His motions for judicial notice are denied. 6 D. Motions to Supplement 7 Plaintiff moves this Court to supplement the City Defendants’ discovery responses. It 8 appears that Plaintiff is trying to compel the City Defendants to respond. He argues that 9 Defendants North Las Vegas Police Department, Jason Reusch, and Loren Cooley failed to 10 respond to his second set of discovery requests. ECF Nos. 169, 170, 171. These are substantially 11 similar to the arguments Plaintiff made in his motion to strike. As discussed above, this Court will 12 order the City Defendants to file a supplement so that it can determine whether they responded 13 and whether those responses were timely. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to compel are denied 14 without prejudice. 15 II. CONCLUSION 16 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 149) is DENIED in part 17 consistent with the above order. However, the Clerk’s Office is directed to leave the motion 18 gaveled pending this Court’s ruling on the motion as to the remaining City Defendants. The City 19 Defendants must file a supplement that includes verification of the dates Plaintiff mailed the 20 discovery requests and copies of the City Defendants’ responses to those discovery requests by 21 April 13, 2026. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel the internal affairs report 23 (ECF No. 152) is DENIED as moot. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office is instructed to gavel ECF Nos. 25 163 and 187 as these are motions for judicial notice. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for judicial notice (ECF Nos. 153, 27 163, 187) are DENIED. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to supplement (ECF Nos. 169, 2 || 170, 171) are DENIED without prejudice. 3 4 DATED: March 13, 2026 5 .

6 Li pr la wre □□□ BRENDA WEKSLER 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28