Donald E. Mitchell, Jr. v. N. Breitenbach, et al.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:23-cv-00276-CSD DONALD E. MITCHELL, JR., 4 Order Plaintiff 5 Re: ECF No. 84 v. 6 N. BREITENBACH, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike two documents from Defendants’ second 10 supplemental disclosures: (1) the Inspector General’s Investigative Closure Report and 11 (2) Plaintiff’s Booking Summary Report. (ECF No. 84.) Defendants oppose the motion. (ECF 12 No. 85.) 13 While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides authority for the court to strike 14 "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" from a pleading, it does not authorize 15 the court to strike material contained in other documents filed with the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 12(f). Courts, however, have inherent powers to control their dockets, see Ready Transp., Inc. v. 17 AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), and to "achieve the orderly 18 and expeditious disposition of cases." Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). "This 19 includes the power to strike items from the docket as a sanction for litigation conduct." Ready, 20 627 F.3d at 404 (citations omitted); see also Wallace v. U.S.A.A. Life General Agency, Inc., 862 21 F.Supp.2d 1062, 1068 (D. Nev. 2012) (citing Ready, 627 F.3d at 404). "Such power is 22 indispensable to the court's ability to enforce its orders, manage its docket, and regulate 23 1} insubordinate...conduct." /d. (citing Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-cv-01387-RLH-PAL, 2010 WL 3910072, at * 2 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)). 3 First, with respect to the Investigative Closure Report, Plaintiff argues that it is biased and does not believe an investigation was ever conducted. 5 Second, Plaintiff claims that his booking summary report is prejudicial as it contains information, including Plaintiff’s tattoos and religion, that are not relevant to this civil rights 7|| action. 8 Defendants are correct that these documents were produced as part of their disclosures, and have not been filed in connection with any document in this case, or proffered as evidence in 10|| any manner. The documents are not in the “record,” as Plaintiff suggests, and as such, there is 11|/nothing for the court to strike. Plaintiff can make an argument about the authenticity or veracity 12|| of the investigative report if it is offered by Defendants as evidence in connection with a motion 13]| for summary judgment or at trial, but his arguments are premature where the document has not 14]| been offered as evidence. The same logic applies to the booking summary. Plaintiff may make an argument as to its relevance and/or admissibility if it is offered in connection with a motion for 16||summary judgment or at trial, through a motion in /imine. 17 For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion to strike (ECF No. 84) is DENIED. 18), IT IS SO ORDERED. 19|| Dated: April 7, 2026 CS Oy Craig S. Denney 21 United States Magistrfte Judge 22 23