Jackson v. Nevada Department of Corrections

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Robert Jackson, Case No. 2:20-cv-01322-ART-MDC 5 Plaintiff, 6 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY (ECF No. 79) 7 Nevada Department of Corrections et al. 8 Defendants. 9

10 Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery (ECF No. 79)(“Motion”), which the Court construes as a 11 motion to re-open discovery, is DENIED. Plaintiff’s related Objection (ECF No. 78) is 12 OVERRULLED. 13 I. BACKGROUND 14 The only claim at issue in the case is plaintiff’s First Amendment relation claim. ECF No. 22 at 15 10. Plaintiff claims that defendants retaliated against him because he sued them in another case for 16 allegedly violating his diet requirements. ECF No. 62. The alleged retaliation consisted of defendants 17 M Natali and Kelly conducting a targeted search of plaintiff’s cell, confiscating some belongings, and 18 manufacturing weapons charges. Id. As a result of the search, plaintiff and his cellmate were red-placed 19 in confinement (“red-tagged”) and plaintiff was subsequently sent to segregation without notice of any 20 charges. 21 II. RELEVANT DISCOVERY HISTORY 22 On February 9, 2023, plaintiff served defendants with a Request for Production of Documents 23 (“RFP”). See ECF No. 68 at 17. Thereafter the parties engaged in lengthy efforts to resolve serval 24 disputes that arose regarding defendants’ responses to the RFP. In May 2023, plaintiff filed two motions 25 to compel (ECF Nos. 43, 47) after informal efforts to resolve discovery disputes were unsuccessful. The Court ruled on those motions on October 17, 2023, and entered an order (ECF No. 56)(“10/17/23 1 Order”) compelling defendants to produce to plaintiff all responsive emails found or certification if no 2 responsive emails were located. See ECF No. 56. On October 24, 2023, defendants filed a Notice of Compliance (ECF No. 57)(“10/24/23 Notice”) stating that they have complied with Court’s 10/17/23 3 Order and produced all responsive emails, which were identified as Bates stamped documents “Wilson 4 Emails 001-031” and “Nash Emails 001-069.” Plaintiff did not contest defendants’ production or 5 assertion that they had produced to him all emails responsive to his RFP. 6 Other disputes regarding plaintiff’s RFP remained, however, and the parties attempted to 7 informally resolve them. Those efforts were unintentionally delayed as a result of defendants’ change of 8 counsel and other mail issues. See ECF No. 68. Ultimately, the parties’ efforts were unsuccessful and 9 plaintiff timely a filed third Motion To Compel Discovery (ECF No. 68) relative to his RFP on October 10 23, 2024. The Court heard plaintiff’s third Motion To Compel Discovery on March 7, 2025. See ECF 11 No. 76. During the hearing, defendants again confirmed that all responsive emails had been produced as 12 compelled by the Court’s 10/17/23 Order and certified by defendants’ Notice of Compliance (ECF No. 13 57). The Court granted in part plaintiff’s third Motion To Compel Discovery (ECF No. 68) and 14 compelled defendants to respond to plaintiff’s RFP numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, and 16. See ECF No. 15 76. 16 On April 1, 2025, defendants filed a Notice of Compliance (ECF No. 77)(“4/1/25 Notice”) 17 stating that “all available supplemental documents have been provided to Plaintiff” via supplemental 18 disclosures and responses, in compliance with the Court’s order at ECF No. 76. 19 On April 14, 2025, plaintiff filed an Objection (“ECF No. 78) to defendants’ 4/1/25 Notice suggesting that defendants’ “finally provided the emails related to the shift supervisor.” Id. Plaintiff also 20 claims that defendants’ supplemental production included a photograph which purportedly demonstrates 21 that no weapons were found in his cell. On the basis of his Objection, plaintiff also filed his Motion 22 (ECF No. 79) seeking to re-open discovery to request the following from defendants: 23 (1) The identity of the shift supervisor who authorized the weapons charge against plaintiff 24 since there “was no evidence of weapons.” 25 2 1 (2) The video of Sgt. John Rivera regarding denial of plaintiff’s dinner due to plaintiff 2 refusing to accept an “unapproved diet.” (3) The audio recording of his cellmate’s disciplinary hearing. 3 (4) A an unredacted version of the photograph produced by defendants which does not redact 4 his cellmate’s identification card. 5 (5) All emails by Jonathan Rivera that mention plaintiff. 6 III. ANALYSIS 7 “The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 8 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). The federal rules of civil procedure, “should be construed, administered, 9 and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of 10 every action and proceeding.” FRCP 1. The Court has discretion to reopen discovery upon a showing 11 of good cause. See McCart-Pollak v. On Demand Direct Response LLC, No. 2:20-CV-01624-GMN- 12 MDC, 2024 WL 3256517, at *3 (D. Nev. July 1, 2024), objections overruled sub nom. McCart-Pollak v. 13 Saevitzon, No. 2:20-CV-01624-GMN-MDC, 2025 WL 89611 (D. Nev. Jan. 13, 2025). Plaintiff has not 14 shown good cause to reopen discovery. 15 First, defendants affirm that they have produced all responsive emails and “available 16 supplemental documents” to plaintiff. See ECF Nos. 57 and 77; see also McCart-Pollak, 2024 WL 17 3256517, at *2 (“An attorney's signature on a disclosure document constitutes a certification that to the 18 best of the attorney's knowledge and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry the disclosures are correct 19 and complete as of the date signed.”)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(A)). Plaintiff does not identify in his Motion any purportedly new emails that plaintiff produced for the first time in April 2025. Second, 20 the proposed discovery sought by plaintiff is not relevant, not proportional, and has been previously 21 denied by the Court (see ECF Nos. 56 and 68). 22 Plaintiff’s first proposed request for identity of the shift supervisor is premised on plaintiff’s 23 allegation that the photograph produced by defendants shows there is “no evidence of weapons.” 24 Defendants establish, however, that the previously produced Notice of Charges identifies the weapons as 25 3 1 || 6 inch sharpened piece of metal, and a pen that was altered to create a rigid stabbing weapon” (ECF 2 || No. 81-1), which are visible in the photograph (ECF No. 79 at 7). Thus, plaintiffs request is not 3 || relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case. 4 Plaintiff's proposed discovery requests numbers two through four are also not relevant. 5 Proposed request number two concerns plaintiffs separate suit regarding alleged violations of his diet

‘ requirements. Plaintiffs third and fourth discovery requests concern his cellmate, and the Court has

previously denied similar requests regarding his cellmate (see ECF Nos. 56 and 68). Plaintiffs proposed fifth request seeks irrelevant information because Jonathan Rivera is not a defendant and 1s also unreasonably broad and not proportional to the needs of the case. Moreover, the record shows that defendants have produced all responsive emails (ECF Nos. 57 and 77). ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No. 78) is OVERRULLED. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Discovery (ECF No. 4 79)\(‘“Motion”), which the Court construes as a motion to re-open discovery is DENIED. Dated: June 26, 2025. as

Hon pftspealiano ouvillier Til 18 . itedtates en Judge 19 Sf if

21 22 23 24 25