United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Doc. # 66
WILLIAM G. COBB, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #66. Defendants have responded (Doc. # 69) and Plaintiff has replied (Doc. # 72).
I. BACKGROUND OF LITIGATION
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Count One (Doc. # 4), asserts a claim under the Fourth Amendment related to the alleged use of excessive force by Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputies Landa, Fay and Dove, who arrived at his home following a call made by his grandson concerning a domestic dispute. Count Two contains Plaintiff's state law claims for assault and battery in violation of Nevada Revised Statute 200.481(1)(a). Counts One and Two also allege that while Defendants Landa, Fay and Dove were beating Plaintiff, Defendant Rodgers (also a Humboldt County Deputy Sheriff) arrived and saw their conduct, yet did nothing to intervene, nor did he report the incident. (Doc. # 4.)
The amended complaint was screened and the aforementioned constitutional and state law claims were allowed to proceed. (Doc. # 9.) Defendants Dove and Fay answered the amended complaint on November 12, 2013 (Doc. # 16); Defendant Landa answered on January 31, 2014 (Doc. # 28); and Defendant Rodgers Answered on February 21, 2014.
II. BACKGROUND OF MOTION TO COMPEL
Local Rule 26-7 requires, with respect to a discovery motion, that the movant certifies he or she first attempted to sincerely resolve the discovery dispute. (L.R. 26-7(b).) Plaintiff appears to have satisfied this requirement. (Doc. # 66 at 1; 21-15 (Ex. B).) Local Rule 26-7(a) also requires a discovery motion to "set forth in full the text of the discovery originally sought and the response thereto, if any, " which condition Plaintiff has met via his attachment of the Defendants' supplemental responses to his request for production. ( Id. at 14-19 (Ex. A).)
Plaintiff's states he served a second set of requests for production (RFP) on June 2, 2014. The Defendants responded on July 2, 2014. On July 17, 2014, plaintiff states he served a Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a) notice in a good faith attempt to confer and resolve the issue without court intervention. Plaintiff notes the Defendants supplemented their responses to RFP numbers 27 and 31 on July 28, 2014, but they did not supplement their responses to RFP numbers 25, 26, 29, 34 and 35. ( Id at 2.) Plaintiff's motion, therefore, concerns the Defendants' responses and supplemental responses to seven requests for production.
The court will now address the pertinent requests for production and Defendants' responses thereto which are the subject of this discovery dispute.
III. DISCUSSION AND ORDER
Request #25: Plaintiff sought copies of all Humboldt County Sheriff's reports relating to previous dispatches to the Robinson home because Defendant Landa stated in the incident report he had been to that residence in the past for civil matters. Plaintiff states the information sought would go to the credibility of Landa as his incident report contains several discrepancies (such as a claim of taking photos of Ms. Robinson on June 17, 2011).
Defendants objected to producing the information as not being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further contended it would be unduly burdensome to research records to ascertain if such exists. (Doc. # 66 at 15 (Ex. A).)
Defendants further argue that the language of Rule 26-(b)(1) does not automatically entitle parties to discovery related to claims and defenses that have not been pled. (Doc. # 69 at 2.) Plaintiff's suit alleges he was subjected to excessive force at the time of his arrest. Defendants contend facts and circumstances surrounding previous incidents are not probative of the claims asserted in Plaintiff's amended complaint. As to Plaintiff's argument regarding the credibility of Deputy Landa, Defendants state "FRCP 608(b)" does not permit impeachment of a witness on a collateral matter and prohibits the introduction of extrinsic evidence to that end. ( Id., at 3.)
In reply, Plaintiff states copies of prior instances are relevant to the credibility aspect and to the Defendants' objective reasonable use of force that is based upon them considering the Plaintiff a threat. (Doc. # 72 at 1.) He states that "previous issues regarding discovery have proved that the defendants' ...