United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MOTION TO COMPEL
[ECF NO. 41], MOTION TO PRODUCE [ECF NO. 45], REQUEST FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF NO. 47]
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff Ernest Guardado's Motion for an
Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 41), Motion for Order on
Defendants to Produce Information on Defendant Barron (ECF
No. 45), and Notice to the Court and/or in the Alternative
Request for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 47). For the
reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motions to compel
and produce (ECF Nos. 41 and 45) are denied. Plaintiff's
request for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 47) should be
denied without prejudice at this time to allow the parties to
work together towards a solution.
an inmate, sent a request for production of documents on
January 21, 2019. (ECF No. 41 at 4). On February 26, 2019,
Plaintiff, having received no response, sent a letter for a
meet and confer. (Id.). On March 2, 2019, Plaintiff
received a response dated February 25, 2019 that objected to
the discovery requests and provided one document.
(Id. at 4-5; ECF No. 48-1). On March 3, 2019,
Plaintiff sent a reply stating that the response was untimely
and Defendants had seven days to produce the requested
documents. (ECF No. 41 at 5). Plaintiff did not receive a
response, and filed his motion to compel on March 13, 2019.
to whom a discovery request is directed must respond within
30 days. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(A). However, when service of a
documents is made by mail, “3 days are added after the
period would otherwise expire.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d).
“[I]f the period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or
legal holiday, the period continues to run until the same
time on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(2)(C).
sent his discovery requests on January 21, 2019. The 30-day
deadline ended on February 20, 2019. However, Plaintiff
served his discovery requests by mail, which added an
additional three days for Defendants to respond. February 23,
2019 fell on a Saturday, so the deadline extended to the
first business day following that Saturday-February 25, 2019.
Defendants sent their objections on February 25, 2019, though
they were not received until later. Thus, Defendants'
objections to Plaintiff's discovery requests were timely.
motion to compel does not address the substance of
Defendants' objections, as Plaintiff asserts they were
untimely and, therefore, waived. (ECF No. 41 at 5).
Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
complaint lists Correctional Officer Barron as a Defendant.
(ECF No. 6 at 4). However, the Court dismissed
Plaintiff's claim against Barron in a previous Screening
Order. (ECF No. 5 at 7). Plaintiff requests “that this
Court order Defendants to produce the required information on
Defendant Barron in order to effect service.” (ECF No.
45 at 2). Because Barron is no longer a Defendant in this
case, Defendants are not required to produce any information
in order to effect service. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion
to produce is denied.
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
asserts that High Desert State Prison has refused to allow
Plaintiff to obtain copies of witness affidavits despite
Warden Williams writing that, after consulting with the
Attorney General's Office, copying would be allowed. (ECF
No. 47 at 2, 6). Plaintiff request a preliminary injunction
prohibiting High Desert State Prison from preventing
Plaintiff from copying his affidavits. (Id. at 4).
In response, Deputy Attorney General Henry Kim
“represents to the Court that he will work with the
High Desert State Prison (HDSP) staff members to allow inmate
Guardado to make copies of the affidavits.” (ECF No. 50
parties appear to be in agreement that Plaintiff should be
permitted to make copies of his affidavits. Counsel for
Defendants is willing to assist Plaintiff in this process. It
would be more efficient for the parties to resolve the issue
among themselves rather than have the Court intervene through
the injunction procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
Therefore, I recommend denying Plaintiff's request for a
preliminary injunction without prejudice. The report and
recommendation process will allow Plaintiff the opportunity
to object should the parties be unable to resolve the copying
issue by themselves. However, should Plaintiff object, the
Court notes that any injunction would have to be issued
against the law librarians at High Desert State Prison, who
are not currently parties to this action. Before issuing a
temporary injunction, the Court would have to provide notice
to these law librarians. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a).
and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF
No. 41) and Motion for Order on Defendants to Produce
Information on Defendant Barron (ECF No. 45) are DENIED.
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Notice to the Court
and/or in the Alternative Request for Preliminary Injunction
(ECF No. 47) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff has until
April 29, 2019 to file an objection or notice to the ...