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.

Collins v. Collins

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 26, 2019

RONALD COLLINS, Plaintiff
v.
JOSHUA COLLINS, Defendants

          ORDER RE: ECF NOS. 161, 162, 199

          William G. Cobb United States Magistrate Judge.

         Before 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.)[1] 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.)

         Plaintiff 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 reply brief.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Count 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.

         Plaintiff 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.)

         Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment as to Count IV just over a week later, on September 25, 2018. (ECF No. 126.)

         Defendants 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.

         Defendants 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.)

         At the 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. (Id.)

         Defendants 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.)

         On 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.)

         On 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.

         Defendants 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 ...


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.