The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert C. Jones United States District Judge
This case arises out of an alleged hostile work environment. Defendants have moved for Rule 11 sanctions and to strike the opposition to their previous motion for summary judgment, with attached exhibits. For the reasons given herein, the Court denies the motions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Keith Westengard is a Battalion Chief with the Nevada Division of Forestry ("NDF"). (Am. Compl. ¶ 2, Nov. 16, 2010, ECF No. 13). Plaintiff became aware that a supervisor was "interfering with operations of the agency in Elko with his affairs with two dispatchers and one ambulance attendant," another supervisor's allegedly poor management style, and illegal activity with respect to grant monies. (See id. ¶ 14). Plaintiff characterizes these as issues of public concern. (See id. ¶ 13). Plaintiff complained of these issues to Defendants, who are his supervisors and co-workers. (Id. ¶ 14). He also facilitated a meeting between an Elko
Commissioner and some NDF employees concerning the alleged adverse effects of poor administration upon operations. (See id.). In retaliation for his complaints, Defendants created a hostile working environment for Plaintiff, including: Defendant Holly Bullington, a dispatcher, to respond to Plaintiff's calls; Bullington's defamation of Plaintiff within and without the agency; the receipt of a negative performance evaluation from an unidentified person, as well as the initiation of an investigation against him for unspecified reasons; and Plaintiff's termination.
¶ 15).*fn1 Plaintiff was also placed on administrative leave during wildfire season, resulting
to seek overtime hours. (See id.). Defendant Richard Harvey has allegedly admitted that the reason behind these adverse employment actions is to keep Plaintiff quiet his complaints so that NDF does not lose its contract with Elko County. (See id. ¶ 16). Plaintiff's damages consist of emotional distress and lost wages and benefits. (Id. ¶ 17).
Plaintiff sued Defendants in this court on a single cause of action for First Amendment retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and the Court denied the motion. Defendants have now moved for Rule 11 sanctions and to strike Plaintiff's response to their previous motion for summary judgment.
Defendants ask the Court to sanction Plaintiff for including scandalous matter concerning two Defendants, i.e., that they were engaged in extra-marital affairs, and that one Defendant frequented brothels during work hours and in a work vehicle. Defendants moved for a protective
prior to the deposition of Defendant Sam Hicks, who Plaintiff had identified in discovery as the supervisor identified in the Complaint as having allegedly had extra-marital affairs with "with two dispatchers and one ambulance attendant." The magistrate judge denied the motion. In his opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff stated that Hicks had
open sexual affairs with certain of the dispatchers, even in the dispatch room and his
brothels while on duty and in the NDF official vehicles." He also stated that one of the women with whom Hicks had an affair was Defendant Holly Burlington. These statements
as part of Plaintiff's argument that the affairs harmed the morale of the crews, in lowered readiness, and that Burlington and Hicks retaliated ...