Michael Kasper v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Community Ambulance LLC, Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center LLC, Does 1-15

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 MICHAEL KASPER, Case No. 2:25-cv-02364-GMN-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, COMMUNITY 8 AMBULANCE LLC, SUNRISE HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER LLC, DOES 1-15, 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 I. Relevant Background 13 Pending before the Court is Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center, LLC’s Motion for More 14 Definite Statement.1 ECF No. 12. In its Motion, Sunrise submits that “Plaintiff’s Complaint fails 15 to identify by name any of the medical providers whose care is at issue,” and, thus, Sunrise, whose 16 liability is based on respondeat superior, finds it “particularly difficult … to prepare a response.” Id. 17 at 10. Sunrise contends that, based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, he has a copy of his 18 medical records and, therefore, should be required to identify the medical providers whose care 19 underlies his claims. Id. Plaintiff opposes Sunrise’s Motion stating his Complaint “is detailed, 20 chronological, and provides Sunrise with more than sufficient notice of the claims asserted.” ECF 21 No. 17 at 3. Plaintiff further contends that the identity of the individual medical providers is 22 information “uniquely within Defendant’s possession and appropriately obtained through discovery 23 not through a Rule 12(e) motion.” Id. Plaintiff does not refute Sunrise’s contention that he has his 24 medical records. See id., generally. In Reply, Sunrise reiterates that “the employment status of 25 hospital personnel is significant to defending the claims” and given Plaintiff’s ability to identify the 26

27 1 On January 23, 2026, the Court entered a Minute Order noting that Sunrise was withdrawing its Motion to 1 “actions and inactions of medical providers …[,] he should likewise be able to identify the providers 2 who allegedly committed those actions or inactions.” ECF No. 24 at 3. 3 II. Discussion 4 A motion for more definite statement is appropriately brought before the Court when a 5 “pleading ... is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 12(e). An order granting such a motion is appropriate when the defendant cannot ascertain 7 the substance of the asserted claim. Buckley v. Cnty. of San Mateo, Case No. 14-cv-05488, 2015 8 WL 5769616, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2015). “Rule 12(e) motions are disfavored and rarely granted.” 9 Id. (citing Castaneda v. Burger King Corp., 597 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1045 (N.D. Cal. 2009)). 10 “Whether to grant a Rule 12(e) motion is within the discretion of the district court.” Star Fabrics 11 Inc. v. Norm Thompson Outfitters, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-2765, 2019 WL 6894528, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 12 July 10, 2019). If a court grants a defendant’s motion for more definite statement, that court may 13 allow leave to amend the pleading to make it consistent with the rules of pleading outlined in Fed. 14 R. Civ. P. 8. Mason v. Cnty. of Orange, 251 F.R.D. 562, 563 (C.D. Cal. 2008). 15 Rule 12(e) “is aimed at unintelligibility rather than lack of detail and is only appropriate 16 when the defendant cannot understand the substance of the claim asserted.” Conta v. City of 17 Huntington Beach, Case No. 8:21-cv-01897, 2022 WL 3574439, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2022) 18 (internal quote marks and citation omitted). “[A] motion for a more definite statement should not 19 be granted unless the defendant literally cannot frame a responsive pleading.” Id. (internal quote 20 marks and citation omitted). In Wright & Miller, 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1377 (3d ed.), the 21 authors discuss motions for more definite statement:

22 ... (I)t is universally assumed that inasmuch as the motion is proper only when the pleading to which it is addressed is so vague that it cannot be responded to, the only 23 information obtainable is that which is necessary to frame a responsive pleading. Moreover, the generally accepted current construction of Rule 12(e) is that the 24 movant's ability to prepare a responsive pleading is to be measured in terms of the minimal duty imposed on him by the federal pleading rules and the possibility that 25 he might be prejudiced by attempting to answer the pleading in its existing form. Thus, if a party is able to discharge his pleading obligations under the rules, a Rule 26 12(e) motion based on the belief that a better affirmative pleading will enable him to provide a more enlightening or accurate response will be denied. 27 1 Sunrise’s Motion and Reply lack support for the conclusion that it cannot formulate a 2 response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint based on Plaintiff’s failure to name the medical 3 providers at issue. Sunrise argues Plaintiff has his medical records and has pleaded what actions 4 and inactions allegedly support his claims. Sunrise contends that based on Plaintiff’s pleading he 5 can identify the medical providers and should be made to do so. But, Sunrise never states that it 6 cannot identify the providers itself; rather, Sunrise argues Plaintiff clearly can do so and that his 7 doing so would assist Sunrise in identifying which providers are employees and which are 8 independent contractors. See ECF Nos. 12 at 10; 24 at 3. Plaintiff does not dispute Sunrise’s 9 assertions and instead says this information is in Sunrise’s possession or that Sunrise can obtain this 10 information through discovery. ECF No. 17. Even treating Plaintiff’s statements as confirming his 11 ability to identify the medical providers, this does not translate into Sunrise’s inability to draft and 12 file a response to the First Amended Complaint. Under the totality of the arguments made, the Court 13 cannot conclude Sunrise, literally, cannot frame a response. 14 In sum, it may well be that despite knowing the names of the medical providers whose 15 conduct is the basis upon which he seeks to hold Sunrise responsible, Plaintiff made the choice not 16 to identify these providers. If the Court correctly summarizes these facts, Plaintiff’s choice is 17 troubling. However, it is Sunrise who brought the Motion for More Definite Statement, and Sunrise 18 who must meet the standard for granting such a motion. Conta, 2022 WL 3574439 at *3. The Court 19 reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, specifically focusing on the allegations in paragraphs 73 20 through 87. The Court is not persuaded that Sunrise is unable to meet its minimal duty in forming 21 a response to these paragraphs or the causes of action in which it is named as a defendant. 22 Nonetheless, Plaintiff is advised that litigation in federal court is not a game. Withholding 23 information, including, but not limited to the names of the medical providers Plaintiff believes 24 engaged in wrongdoing, will not be tolerated. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 requires a plaintiff 25 to include the names of the parties in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Thus, when asked in discovery 26 to provide the name of each medical provider who engaged in wrongdoing Plaintiff must provide 27 this information to Sunrise or any other Defendant that inquires. If, for some reason, Plaintiff does 1 through promptly serving Interrogatories (written questions) that provides enough specificity about 2 the event to allow Sunrise to conduct a reasonable research and respond to the best of its ability to 3 do so. 4 III. Order 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center, LLC’s Motion for More 6 Definite Statement (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sunrise must file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s 8 Amended Complaint no later than May 21, 2026. 9 Dated this 7th day of May, 2026. 10 11

12 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27