Leandre Martell v. Officer D. Lowery, et al.

Opinion

Leandre Martell, Plaintiff, No. 2:24-cv-00159-GMN-MDC vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 51) AND MOTION FOR Officer D. Lowery, et al., PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (ECF NO. Defendants. 56)

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (“Compel Motion”) (ECF No. 51) and Motion for the Production of Documents (“Production Motion”) (ECF No. 56) (collectively “Motions”). The Court interprets the Production Motion to be a Motion to compel documents. See ECF No. 56. “The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery[.]” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (citing Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). Given the circumstances of this case and of plaintiff recent incarceration, the Court finds good cause to grant the Motions.1 Defendants are compelled to respond to plaintiff’s requests for discovery in the Motions. The Court notes that defendants have not waived any objections to the discovery requests. If defendants want to raise any objections to any of plaintiff’s requests, the parties must meet and confer before filing any motions with the court. The Court expects defense counsel to cooperate and coordinate any such meet and confer sessions with plaintiff. // // // //

1 Furthermore, defendants did not oppose the Production Motion. 1 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 51) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for the Production of Documents (ECF No. 56) is interpreted to be a Motion to compel documents. The Motion is GRANTED. 3. Defendants are compelled to respond to plaintiffs requests for discovery in the Motions. 4. If defendants want to raise any objections to any of plaintiffs requests in the Motions, the parties must meet and confer before filing any motions. The Court expects defense counsel to cooperate and coordinate any such meet and confer sessions with plaintiff. DATED: December 5, 2025 Hox/Maximiliand D,£ouvillier, II Vnited “re Judge ° NOTICE Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal

59 determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 51 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 US. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections 99 within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452,

454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 3