Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Slaughter v. Escamilla

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 17, 2018

RICKIE SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff,
v.
ESCAMILLA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER RE ECF NO. 46

          WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court is Plaintiff Slaughter's Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions (ECF No. 46).[1] Defendants opposed Plaintiff's Motion to Compel/Motion for Sanctions in a combined filing (ECF No. 51). No. timely reply has been received.

         Plaintiff's motion to compel addresses five (5) discovery requests served as to Defendants Escamilla and Travis. The court will address the disputed requests separately. First, however, the court takes note of Defendants' contention Plaintiff did not adequately meet and confer to attempt to resolve the discovery disputes. (ECF No. 51 at 2.) While perhaps the Plaintiff could have conversed in greater detail with the Defendants' counsel, in view of the limitations facing an inmate, particularly one who has been transferred to Arizona for housing (see ECF No. 39), the court will not deny Plaintiff's motion on that ground. That being said, as discussed at pp. 6-7, even though the court is granting certain of Plaintiff's requests for further discovery responses against Defendants, the court is not granting Plaintiff's sanctions by reason of Plaintiff's failure to complete the meet and confer process.

         The court will now turn to the specified discovery responses to which Plaintiff takes exception.

         I. Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 4 to Defendant Escamilla: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 4:

         Produce the documents written or electronic which identify the work-shifts that you worked at ESP for each day beginning [sic] from October 16, 2015 through October 26, 2015, including shift logs.

         RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 4:

         Defendant produces the Shift Roster for ESP and time sheets for the period of October 16, 2015 through October 26, 2015, identified as SLAUGHTER 457: Def. Escamilla Resp. to RFPD [1] 001-011.

         SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST:

         Escamilla's response needs to include the shift roster starting from October 16, 2015, at 5:00 a.m. through October 16, 2015, 5:00 p.m.

         SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 4:

         Defendants produce the shift roster for October 16, 2015, at 5:00 am through October 16, 2015, 5:00 pm, identified as SLAUGHTER 457: Def. Escamilla Resp. to RFPD [1] 012-014.

         DISCUSSION

         Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion states Defendant Escamilla “mistakenly only produced shift logs for October 16 due to a typographical error when retyping Slaughter's request. Defendants have attached the responsive documents. See Exhibit A.” (ECF No. 51 at 2-3.)

         Exhibit A to Defendants' opposition submits 63 pages of shift rosters pertaining to the subject time period. (ECF No. 51-1, pp. 1-54.) Defendants' response appears to be sufficient and Plaintiff's objection is overruled.

         * * *

         II. Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 3 to Defendant Travis:

         INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

         Identify the lawsuits filed by ESP prisoners that have been served upon you naming you as a defendant.

         RESPONSE TO ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.