Boyd v. Henry

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Keair Boyd, Case No. 2:23-cv-01022-CDS-MDC 4 Plaintiff Order Overruling Defendants’ Limited Objection to Scheduling Order v. Tanisha Henry, et al., [ECF No. 29] 7 Defendants 9 Defendants Tanisha Henry and James Scally filed a very limited objection to the scheduling order entered by United States Magistrate Judge Maximiliano Couvillier on February 28, 2025. Obj., ECF No. 29. Any response or opposition to the objection was due on or before March 14, 2025. Id.; see also Local Rule IB 3-1(a). To date, Boyd has not responded to the filing. For the reasons set forth herein, the defendants’ objection is overruled, and Judge Couvillier’s order is affirmed in full.

15 I. Legal Standard 16 Where, as here, a magistrate judge issues a pre-trial order regarding a non-dispositive matter, any party may seek review by filing specific objections to the order. 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Local Rule (LR) IB 3-1. The district judge in the case must consider timely filed objections, but the court cannot modify or set aside any part of the order unless it is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Doe v. Kamehameha Sch., 596 F.3d 1036, 1041 n.4 (9th Cir. 2010). A magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous” if the court has “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Burdick v. Comm’r, 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). A magistrate judge’s order is “contrary to law” if the order applies the incorrect legal standard or misapplies applicable law. Na Pali Haweo Cmty. Ass’n v. Grande, 252 F.R.D. 672, 674 (D. Haw. 2008); see also UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. v. United Healthcare, Inc., 2014 WL 4635882, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2014) (“An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law[,] or rules of procedure.”).

3 II. Discussion 4 It is well-established that “[t]he district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery[.]” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 601 (D. Nev. 2011) (citing Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). As relevant here, Magistrate Judge Couvillier exercised his discretion by ordering that defendants not: 8 treat any discovery request by plaintiff as a Kite, nor require plaintiff to submit Kites in addition to or as a prerequisite to serving discovery. Any discovery disputes must be resolved in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure, the Court’s Local Rules, and relevant case authority.

11 Sch. order, ECF No. 27 at 4 (emphasis added).

12 This is the very limited portion of the scheduling order to which the defendants’ object.

13 See ECF No. 29. They argue that this section of the order “appears to be intended to prohibit NDOC from enforcing its Administrative Regulations (AR), specifically AR 568 and AR 639 which prohibit offenders from possessing certain information in their cell” and contend that they “lack the authority to override regulations of NDOC and would generally be required to submit discovery responses to the Warden’s Office of Boyd’s current institution which would allow Boyd to submit a kite to review the documentation.” Id. at 2. But there is nothing in the order that would direct or require the defendants to violate either AR. Both ARs exist to ensure that an inmate’s private information is protected and for the safety of the inmate, while also providing an avenue for accessing sometimes necessary information and documents for legal claims. Indeed, AR 5681 sets forth the policy and procedures for inmates to review their records, while AR 6392 ensures transparency and access to medical, dental, and mental health records.

24 1 See Nev. Dep’t of Corr. Admin. Regul. 568, https://doc.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/docnvgov/content/About/Administrative_Regulations/AR%20568%20- %20Offender%20Review%20of%20Departmental%20Records%20-%20Final%2008.30.22.pdf (last accessed July 16, 2025).

26 2 See Nev. Dep’t of Corr. Admin. Regul., 639,https://doc.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/docnvgov/content/About/Administrative_Regulations/AR%20639 Both ARs are crucial for the protection of private information, but also for the discovery process 2] in legal proceedings involving inmates. The objected-to portion of the scheduling order merely requires that Boyd not have to submit kites to serve discovery. It does not order, direct, or require that his institution permit him to keep copies of his records in his cell, nor require him to 5]| circumvent AR 568, AR 639, or any other applicable AR to access his files for purposes of 6|| discovery. Rather, it is limited to service of discovery.

7 The court recognizes the defendants’ concern. The court, however, interprets the 8] objected-to section of the order as an attempt to ensure discovery disputes are litigated in court and not stymied by, for example, requiring Boyd to file some multi-level grievance procedure to view/access records he needs to review/access for purposes of this litigation. Ultimately, the 11|| defendants’ concern does not demonstrate that the limited section of the scheduling order to which they object is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. Accordingly, the defendants’ 13]| objection is overruled. To the extent the defendants are unable to comply with the order, they 14|| must file an appropriate motion to address their issue(s) before Judge Couvillier.

15] TI. Conclusion 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ limited objection to Judge Couvillier’s 17|| Scheduling Order [ECF No. 29] is OVERRULED.

18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order [ECF No. 27] is AFFIRMED 19] and ADOPTED in its entirety, so the defendants must covtiply with all requirements set forth 20] therein. / / 21 Dated: July 17, 2025 LZ ristina D. Silva 23 inited States District Judge 24 [ ‘ 26 atest □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 2M 20(sHgnedt 207 2720) (last accessed July 16, 2025).