welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, D. Nevada
  4. 2015
  5. Farkas v. State, Department of Corrections, 2:14-cv-00451-JAD-VCF. (2015)

Farkas v. State, Department of Corrections, 2:14-cv-00451-JAD-VCF. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20150818a22 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 17, 2015
Summary: MOTION TO WITHDRAW DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DISCLOSURE CAM FERENBACH , Magistrate Judge . Defendants Romeo Aranas and Karen Gedney, 1 by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and John L. Ward IV, Deputy Attorney General, hereby file their Motion to Withdraw Defendants' Expert Disclosure. This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, any oral argument this Court may entertain on the same, and all other papers and pleading
More

MOTION TO WITHDRAW DEFENDANTS' EXPERT DISCLOSURE

Defendants Romeo Aranas and Karen Gedney,1 by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and John L. Ward IV, Deputy Attorney General, hereby file their Motion to Withdraw Defendants' Expert Disclosure. This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, any oral argument this Court may entertain on the same, and all other papers and pleadings filed in this action.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 10, 2015, in error, Defendants filed their Expert Disclosure (Doc. #65). As a discovery document, this Expert Disclosure (#65) was not subject to filing, but rather to mailing (as between the Parties). See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

It has long been understood that certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution, powers which cannot be dispensed with in a Court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others[. . . .] These powers are governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

III. ARGUMENT

Defendants move to withdraw their Expert Disclosure (Doc. #65) from the docket, or to strike2 the same, as this Court sees fit, for the inherent error of filing a discovery document not relevant to a motion to compel, etc.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reason(s), Defendants request that this Court strike or otherwise withdraw from the docket Defendants' Expert Disclosure (Doc. #65).

The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Docket #65.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. According to Plaintiff's superseding First Amended Complaint (Doc. #59), Plaintiff is no longer pursuing any legal claim against the State of Nevada, ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC"). Cf. Doc. #53 at 1:26-2:1 (Plaintiff's opposition [. . .] stipulates to the dismissal of the State and NDOC [. . . and] does not disagree that Drs. Aranas and Gedney must be dismissed from the federal claims for monetary and declaratory relief, but also states a desire to amend his complaint to name them in their personal capacities so he can pursue money damages from them."). Compare Doc. #59 at 2:17-3:10 (Plaintiff did not name State of Nevada, ex rel. NDOC as a party-defendant in his superseding First Amended Complaint (Doc. #59)) with Doc. #1 at 3:9-12 (Plaintiff named State of Nevada, ex rel. NDOC as a party-defendant in Plaintiff's now superseded Complaint (Doc. #1)). Notwithstanding, the caption to this case still inappropriately lists "State of Nevada Department of Corrections, as nominal Defendants."
2. A district court has the inherent power to strike a party's submissions other than pleadings. See Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F.Supp. 1109, 1110 (D.Nev. 1988). The alternative basis for striking improper filings is the district court's "inherent power over the administration of its business. It has inherent authority to regulate the conduct of attorneys [and parties] who appear before it [and] to promulgate and enforce rules for the management of litigation. [. . .]" Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
2:14-cv-00451-JAD-VCF.
Counsels
  • ADAM PAUL LAXALT
  • DENISE S. McKAY
  • JOHN L. WARD IV
Similar Cases

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer