Motley v. Silva

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Courtney Motely, Case Nos. 2:23-cv-00624-RFB-BNW 2:24-cv-00735-APG-DJA 5 Plaintiff, 2:24-cv-00981-CDS-MDC

6 v. ORDER 7 Carlos Silva, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before this Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff. The first one is a motion to compel 11 discovery. ECF No. 85. Defendants opposed at ECF No. 89. Plaintiff did not file a reply. Next is 12 Plaintiff’s motion in limine. ECF No. 88. Defendants opposed. ECF No. 90. Plaintiff did not file a 13 reply. The parties are familiar with the arguments. As a result, this Court only incorporates them 14 as necessary and relevant to the analysis. For the reasons discussed below, this Court denies both 15 motions. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff sues Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Officers and Investigators Silva 18 and Nogle related to the events surrounding his arrest, and he sues Ms. Rubin related to events 19 that took place prior to his arrest. After screening his complaint, this Court found Mr. Motely 20 would be able to proceed with the following claims: (1) false arrest; (2) excessive force; (3) 21 slander; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); and (5) negligent infliction of 22 emotional distress (“NIED”). ECF Nos. 53 and 80. Plaintiff has since moved for summary 23 judgment, and his motion is pending. ECF No. 83. The deadline for Defendants to file a motion 24 for summary judgment remains open. See ECF No. 53 (dispositive motions due August 14, 2025). 25 II. ANALYSIS 26 A. Motion to compel production of body camera footage 27 Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is governed by Rule 26, which 1 any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance 2 of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to 3 relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 4 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” 5 Rule 26(b)(1). A propounding party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery 6 pursuant to Rule 37(a). Any motion to compel brought pursuant to Rule 37 must include a 7 certification by the moving party that he met and conferred, or attempted to meet and confer, with 8 the person or party alleged to have failed to properly produce or respond to the discovery at issue 9 in order to try and resolve the matter without court intervention. Id. 10 Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel Officer Manzanedo’s body worn camera footage for 11 August 18, 2021. Defendants assert Officer Manzanedo did not activate the body worn camera 12 during the incident involving Plaintiff. ECF Nos. 89 at 6, 89-1, and 89-2. The parties met and 13 conferred regarding this issue. 14 A “court cannot order a party to produce documents that do not exist.” Porter v. Gore, 15 Case No. 18-CV-1221-GPC-LL, 2020 WL 1493615, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (internal 16 citations and quotation marks omitted); Harris v. Dreesen, No. 2:22-CV-01231-JAD-EJY, 2023 17 WL 7496846 * 1 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2023). Given Defendants’ representations, Plaintiff’s request is 18 denied. 19 B. Motion to compel appearance of specific witnesses 20 Plaintiff requests that this Court compel the appearance of certain witnesses at trial. First, 21 the request is premature as there may be dispositive motions filed which, in turn, might narrow 22 the number of claims (and which witnesses may be needed). In addition, should the need arise in 23 the future (after the resolution of dispositive motions) for Plaintiff to subpoena the presence of 24 certain witnesses for trial, this Court directs Plaintiff to Rule 45, which controls this issue. As a 25 result, this request is denied without prejudice. 26 C. Motion in limine 27 “A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence 1 || limine are a well-recognized judicial practice authorized under case law. See, e.g., Ohler v. 2 United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 (2000). The court’s power to rule on motions in limine stems 3 || from its “inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 4 || n.4 (1984). In limine rulings are provisional and “are not binding on the trial judge[ ] [who] may 5 || always change his mind during the course of a trial.” Ohler, 529 U.S. at 758 n.3. In addition, 6 || motions in limine will not be considered unless the parties have participated in the meet-and- 7 || confer process. LR 16-3(a), 8 Plaintiff seeks to preclude Defendants from testifying concerning what the officers 9 || witnessed during Plaintiff's apprehension and arrest. 10 As with the motion to compel, this motion is premature as dispositive motions have not 11 || yet been filed, making it unclear which (Gf any) claims will move forward. Moreover, the parties 12 || have not met and conferred on this matter. As a result, the motion is denied, without prejudice, 13 || and subject to renewal if any of Plaintiff's claims survive summary judgment. 14 Wl. CONCLUSION 15 IT IS THEREFORE OREDERED that Plaintiffs motion to compel (ECF No. 85) is 16 || DENIED as to the production of video footage and DENIED without prejudice as to the request 17 || to compel the appearance of witnesses at trial. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion in limine (ECF No. 88) is 19 || DENIED without prejudice. 20 21 DATED: July 29, 2025 22 23 Kx pr la BRENDA WEKSLER 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28