Dryden v. State of Nevada

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 BRYAN DRYDEN, Case No. 2:16-cv-01227-JAD-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is the Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces-Tecum filed by the Office 11 of the Inspector General of Nevada (the “Motion to Quash”).1 ECF No. 218. The Court has 12 considered the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 222), and the Reply (ECF No. 225). 13 I. DISCUSSION 14 On May 7, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel issued a subpoena to the OIG seeking production of two 15 categories of documents: (1) specific grievances and investigatory records underlying grievances 16 filed by Tyrone McDougald, David Reed, and Daimon Monroe against Defendant Ted Nielson (the 17 “Grievance Materials”); and (2) all records of grievances or complaints filed against Robert 18 Ashcraft, another Corrections Officer at High Desert State Prison. ECF No. 218-1. The OIG objects 19 to the subpoena arguing the documents sought are irrelevant to this case and fall outside the scope 20 of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). ECF No. 218 at 3. For this reason, the OIG asks the 21 Court to quash the subpoena. 22 “District courts enjoy wide discretion in deciding relevancy for discovery purposes.” V5 23 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 334 F.R.D. 306, 309 (D. Nev. 2019). It is also “well established that the scope 24 of discovery under a subpoena issued … [under] Rule 45 is the same as the scope of discovery 25 allowed under Rule 26(b)(1).” Painters Joint Comm. v. Emp. Painters Tr. Health & Welfare Fund, 26 Case No. 2:10-cv-0135-JCM-PAL, 2011 WL 4573349, at *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2011). 27 1 “Relevant information for the purposes of discovery is information reasonably calculated to 2 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 3 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted). The relevance standard for discovery “is not the same 4 as the standard governing admissibility of particular evidence at trial.” Wood v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 5 Case No. 2:17-cv-02393-MMD-DJA, 2020 WL 13528640, at *5 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2020), citing 6 Surfvivor Media, Inc., 406 F.3d at 635. Relevance for discovery purposes is broader than Federal 7 Rule of Evidence 401. Id. In fact, in 2015, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) was amended to expressly 8 recognize the distinction between discovery relevance and admissibility at trial. The Rule now 9 states: “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be 10 discoverable.” Given that discoverable information need not necessarily be admissible at trial, the 11 Court considers whether the documents requested are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 12 of admissible evidence. 13 Documents relating to the Grievance Materials are potentially discoverable under Rule 14 26(b)(1); although, they are not necessarily admissible. The materials may reveal a history of 15 Defendant Nielson acting in the same manner as he is alleged to have acted when interacting with 16 Plaintiff. This may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence such as, but not limited to, motive, 17 opportunity, intent, preparation, plan or, most importantly, a lack of accident. However, in order to 18 ensure that the content of the information provided is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 19 of admissible evidence (and is proportional to the needs of the case), is not misused by Plaintiff, and 20 does not result in any potential harm to Defendant Nielson, the Court requires the produced 21 Grievance Materials be filed under seal for an in camera review. This means the production of these 22 materials are not to be served on Plaintiff or his counsel at the time of filing. The Court will review 23 the materials and provide direction regarding potential production, with an opportunity for objection 24 and response from the parties. 25 With respect to grievances or complaints filed against non-party Robert Ashcraft, the Court 26 finds Plaintiff’s arguments unpersuasive. Plaintiff accuses Mr. Ashcraft of making a threatening 27 statement to Plaintiff concerning his physical well-being around the time Defendant Nielson was to 1 “necessary to learn more about [Ashcraft’s] relation to the issues of intimidation and retaliation 2 against those inmates who file grievances against officers.” Plaintiff claims “[a]ny intimidation 3 related to a civil rights suit should be examined by … Plaintiff’s counsel … and should not have to 4 be investigated as a wholly separate matter outside of the instant case.” Id. at 6. However, Plaintiff 5 cites no authority for the proposition that alleged intimidation by a non-party is relevant to a claim 6 against a defendant who is alleged to have committed battery and used excessive force. That is, 7 Plaintiff has no claim against Officer Ashcraft and while a threat such as the one alleged may 8 constitute a separate claim, it is not likely to lead to evidence that would be admissible to prove his 9 excessive force claim against Officer Nielson. For this reason, the request to quash the subpoena 10 for information relating to complaints and grievances filed against Officer Ashcraft is granted. 11 II. ORDER 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Quash filed by the Office of the Inspector 13 General of Nevada (ECF No. 218) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Quash is DENIED to the extent that the 15 Grievances Materials must be produced as follows: 16 • The Office of the Inspector General of Nevada must file, under seal, without serving 17 Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel, documents responsive to the subpoena request for 18 Grievance Materials. 19 • The responsive documents must be filed within ten (10) court days of the date of this 20 Order. The documents produced must include Bates numbering so they may be 21 consistently identified and referenced going forward. 22 • The Court will review the documents in camera and issue an order sufficiently 23 identifying those documents received the Court finds discoverable. The Court will 24 provide the Office of the Inspector General of Nevada the opportunity to object to 25 the Court’s findings. The Court will also provide Plaintiff the opportunity to respond 26 to any objections raised and, as appropriate within the Court’s complete discretion, 27 an opportunity to review documents the Court finds discoverable, but to which the 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Quash is GRANTED to the extent tl 2 || subpoena seeks the Office of the Inspector General of Nevada to produce grievances and complain 3 || against Corrections Officer Robert Ashcraft. No such documents are to be produced. 4 DATED this 9th day of December, 2022. 6 7 ELAYNA J. YOU UNITED-STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28