Mitchell v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 7, 2022
• Docket: 2:18-cv-00646
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 RICHARD L. MITCHELL, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00646-RFB-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 11 Department (“Metro”) to produce personnel files of two officers who were named in Plaintiff’s 12 lawsuit, only one of whom was served. ECF No. 60. Plaintiff made his original request by writing 13 to Metro’s Records Department, which responded by referring Plaintiff to Metro’s counsel and to 14 case law regarding the confidentiality of public records and Freedom of Information Act requests. 15 Counsel for Metro has now also filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion explaining that Plaintiff 16 should have reached out to Metro’s counsel to request the records of the one officer who has been 17 served (Garcia). ECF No. 61. The Court agrees. Counsel for Garcia also states that because Plaintiff 18 has only recently requested the information, Garcia “still has time to respond to this discovery 19 request and Court need not intervene.” ECF No. 61 at 2. Metro does not state whether it intends to 20 provide any records to Plaintiff. 21 The Court has no way knowing whether, as of this date, the parties resolved their differences. 22 The Court does not know if Metro intends to produce any personnel records pertaining to Sergeant 23 Garcia. Of course, Plaintiff is forewarned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides 24 that Plaintiff may only obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter than is relevant to any 25 party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” On this basis, the Court finds 26 Plaintiff’s request for Officer Stephens’ personnel records is denied as Stephens has not been served 27 in this action rendering his personnel records neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the 1 case. The same is not necessarily true as to Garcia; however, the entirety of Garcia’s personnel 2 records are unlikely to be appropriately produced. 3 In addition to the above, Plaintiff’s Motion asks the Court to reconsider the last denial of 4 appointment of counsel. “A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to relitigate the same issues 5 and arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” Petrarca, 2016 WL 884638, at *1 (internal 6 quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re AgriBioTech, Inc., 319 B.R. 207, 209 (D. Nev. 2004)). 7 Motions for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” Moraga 8 v. Wolfson, Case No. 2:16-cv-287-JCM (VCF), 2019 WL 11707396, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2019) 9 citing Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 10 2009). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 11 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 12 intervening change in controlling law.” Id. citing School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 13 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has presented no new information, identified no error or intervening 14 change in the law, and establishes no manifest injustice. Therefore, his Motion for Reconsideration 15 is denied. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 60) is DENIED. 17 Plaintiff is not entitled to Sergeant Stephens’ personnel records. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED whether any personnel pertaining to Sergeant Garcia should 19 be produced must be addressed through a meet and confer by the parties. If the parties are not able 20 to resolve their differences, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department shall submit an update 21 to the Court summarizing the parties’ relative positions for the Court’s review 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of 23 appointment of counsel is DENIED. 24 DATED this 7 day of February, 2021. 25 26

27 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH