United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER RE: ECF NOS. 161, 162, 199
William G. Cobb United States Magistrate Judge.
the court is an objection and motion to strike filed by
Plaintiff where Plaintiff seeks to strike the first four
pages of Exhibit C filed in support of Defendants'
response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to
Count IV and their counter-motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 161,
162.) Defendants filed a response to the motion
to strike. (ECF No. 166.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No.
169.) Defendants also filed another response to both the
objection and motion to strike asserting the same arguments
as their prior response. (ECF No. 173.) Plaintiff filed a
reply. (ECF No. 177.)
filed several supplements related to Count IV and the STG
classification documents. Defendants moved to strike one of
those supplements in ECF No. 199. Plaintiff filed a response
to ECF No. 199 in ECF No. 204. Defendants did not file a
IV asserts a due process claim against LeGrand, McDaniel,
Baca, Keith Deal, Walsh, Irvin, Foster, and Skulstad based on
allegations Plaintiff was wrongfully placed into a security
threat group (STG). As a result, Plaintiff claims he was in
administrative segregation for two years, and these
defendants refused to hold a classification hearing on his
STG status despite his requests.
filed a motion to compel on September 17, 2018, which sought,
among other things, his classification results forms from
2000 to the present. (ECF No. 121 at 5.)
filed his motion for summary judgment as to Count IV just
over a week later, on September 25, 2018. (ECF No. 126.)
filed their response to the motion to compel on October 1,
2018. (ECF No. 135.) They noted that in their response to
this request for production they objected and then stated
they would produce the forms from 2014 to 2018 to the
warden's office, and Plaintiff could kite to review them.
(Id. at 4.) The court set the motion for a hearing
on October 25, 2018.
filed a motion to extend the time to file their response to
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to Count IV on
October 16, 2018. (ECF No. 147.) The court gave Defendants 10
days after the October 25, 2018 hearing to file their
response. (ECF No. 149.)
October 25, 2018 hearing, the court granted Plaintiff's
motion with respect to the request for production for the STG
classification forms and required Defendants to supplement
their response. Defendants were also ordered to advise
Plaintiff and the warden's office when the supplement
would be available and coordinate a date for Plaintiff to
review the records so that he could mark the pages he wanted
to have copied to attach them to his filings. (ECF No. 155 at
4.) Defendants were to submit a memorandum by November 16,
2018, explaining the documents that would be produced and the
arrangements made for Plaintiff to review the records.
filed their response to Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment on Count IV, and counter-motion to dismiss on
November 5, 2018, attaching administrative segregation
classification results forms from 2013 to 2015 as Exhibit C.
(ECF No. 158-3.)
November 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed a supplemental exhibit to
his motion for summary judgment on Count IV, containing 38
pages of administrative segregation classification review
results forms that he did not have when he filed his motion
because Defendants did not produce them. (ECF No. 159.)
November 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed this objection and motion
to strike the first four pages of Defendants' Exhibit C.
(ECF Nos. 161, 162.) Plaintiff argues that these pages
(Plaintiff's administrative segregation classification
results notices from January 25, 2013, February 21, 2013,
March 21, 2013, and April 26, 2013) should be stricken under
Federal Rule of Civil procedure 37(c) because Defendants
failed to produce these documents to him during discovery.
argue that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) does not
countenance striking any filing other than a pleading. In
addition, Defendants assert that the pages of Exhibit C that
Plaintiff seeks to strike were ordered to be produced at an
October 25, 2018 hearing. They argue that the motion to
strike is moot as Defendants were ...