Tran v. City of Las Vegas

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6 HOANG KIM TRAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00203-ART-BNW 7 Plaintiff, vs. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 8 EXTEND TIME (ECF No. 83) CITY OF LAS VEGAS, et al., 9 Defendants 10 11 Plaintiff has filed a motion to extend time (ECF No. 83) to respond to 12 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 67). Plaintiff requests an 13 extension of time “to view bodycamera footage” and “demands to see footage of 14 Claimant before arrest and attack of canine officer that is missing from the 15 previous footage viewed.” (ECF No. 83 at 2.) More specifically, Plaintiff demands 16 “the footage that shows claimant surrendering dropping to the knees…before the 17 canine officer was ordered to attack.” (Id.) 18 Defendants respond that they have already produced all body camera 19 footage associated with this arrest, and that “there is no such footage, because 20 this series of events never occurred.” (ECF No. 85 at 2.) 21 The Court reviewed the body camera footage produced by Defendants at 22 ECF No. 69. This includes the body camera footage of officers positioned on both 23 sides of Plaintiff during his arrest. The body camera footage shows that Plaintiff 24 was positioned between a concrete wall and a large tree when he was bit by the 25 canine and arrested. Defendants provided body camera footage from both the 26 officers on the other side of the wall from Plaintiff, and the officers positioned 27 behind the tree. While the Court will not determine at this stage of litigation 28 whether Plaintiff did or did not surrender or drop to his knees, it appears that 1 || the body camera footage which shows his arrest and the moments before it has 2 || been produced. 3 Because the Court finds that Defendant has produced the body camera 4 || footage showing Plaintiffs arrest, the Court finds that no good cause exists for an 5 || order that Defendant must produce additional video footage. Bass Underwriters, 6 || Inc. v. Kono, No. 2:22-CV-00138-RFB-EJY, 2024 WL 5010129 (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 7 || 2024), at *2 (“The Court cannot order Defendant to produce information he does 8 || not have and for which there is no real evidence to the contrary.”). The Court 9 || therefore denies Plaintiffs request for additional video footage and grants him a 10 || brief, final extension of time in which to respond to Defendant’s Motion for 11 || Summary Judgment. 12 It is therefore Plaintiffs motion to extend time and for production of 13 || additional body camera footage (ECF No. 83) is DENIED. 14 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's final deadline to submit a response to 15 || Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is February 20, 2025. 16 17 Dated this day of February, 2025 18 19 Ans pod den 20 ANNE R. TRAUM 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28