Motley v. Silva

[[COURTLISTENER_SUBOPINION {"id":"11111647","type":"100trialcourt","part":"other","author":null,"source_field":"html_with_citations"}]]
1                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                       

2                          DISTRICT OF NEVADA                            

3                                 * * *                                  

4   Courtney Motely,                   Case Nos. 2:23-cv-00624-RFB-BNW   
                                                        2:24-cv-00735-APG-DJA 
5                  Plaintiff,                           2:24-cv-00981-CDS-MDC 

6             v.                                                         
                                       ORDER                             
7   Carlos Silva, et al.,                                                

8                  Defendants.                                           

9                                                                        
10       Before this Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff. The first one is a motion to compel 
11  discovery. ECF No. 85. Defendants opposed at ECF No. 89. Plaintiff did not file a reply. Next is 
12  Plaintiff’s motion in limine. ECF No. 88. Defendants opposed. ECF No. 90. Plaintiff did not file a 
13  reply. The parties are familiar with the arguments. As a result, this Court only incorporates them 
14  as necessary and relevant to the analysis. For the reasons discussed below, this Court denies both 
15  motions.                                                              
16     I.   BACKGROUND                                                    
17       Plaintiff sues Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Officers and Investigators Silva 
18  and Nogle related to the events surrounding his arrest, and he sues Ms. Rubin related to events 
19  that took place prior to his arrest. After screening his complaint, this Court found Mr. Motely 
20  would be able to proceed with the following claims: (1) false arrest; (2) excessive force; (3) 
21  slander; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); and (5) negligent infliction of 
22  emotional distress (“NIED”). ECF Nos. 53 and 80. Plaintiff has since moved for summary 
23  judgment, and his motion is pending. ECF No. 83. The deadline for Defendants to file a motion 
24  for summary judgment remains open. See ECF No. 53 (dispositive motions due August 14, 2025). 
25     II.  ANALYSIS                                                      
26          A.  Motion to compel production of body camera footage        
27       Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is governed by Rule 26, which 
1  any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance 
2  of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to 
3  relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 
4  issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” 
5  Rule 26(b)(1). A propounding party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery 
6  pursuant to Rule 37(a). Any motion to compel brought pursuant to Rule 37 must include a 
7  certification by the moving party that he met and conferred, or attempted to meet and confer, with 
8  the person or party alleged to have failed to properly produce or respond to the discovery at issue 
9  in order to try and resolve the matter without court intervention. Id. 
10       Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel Officer Manzanedo’s body worn camera footage for 
11  August 18, 2021. Defendants assert Officer Manzanedo did not activate the body worn camera 
12  during the incident involving Plaintiff. ECF Nos. 89 at 6, 89-1, and 89-2. The parties met and 
13  conferred regarding this issue.                                       
14       A “court cannot order a party to produce documents that do not exist.” Porter v. Gore, 
15  Case No. 18-CV-1221-GPC-LL,
2020 WL 1493615
, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (internal 
16  citations and quotation marks omitted); Harris v. Dreesen, No. 2:22-CV-01231-JAD-EJY, 2023
17  WL 7496846
* 1 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2023). Given Defendants’ representations, Plaintiff’s request is 
18  denied.                                                               
19          B.  Motion to compel appearance of specific witnesses         
20       Plaintiff requests that this Court compel the appearance of certain witnesses at trial. First, 
21  the request is premature as there may be dispositive motions filed which, in turn, might narrow 
22  the number of claims (and which witnesses may be needed). In addition, should the need arise in 
23  the future (after the resolution of dispositive motions) for Plaintiff to subpoena the presence of 
24  certain witnesses for trial, this Court directs Plaintiff to Rule 45, which controls this issue. As a 
25  result, this request is denied without prejudice.                     
26          C.  Motion in limine                                          
27       “A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence 
1 ||  limine are a well-recognized judicial practice authorized under case law. See, e.g., Ohler v. 
2    United States,
529 U.S. 753, 758
(2000). The court’s power to rule on motions in limine stems 
3 ||  from its “inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States,
469 U.S. 38
, 41 
4 || n.4 (1984). In limine rulings are provisional and “are not binding on the trial judge[ ] [who] may 
5 || always change his mind during the course of a  trial.” Ohler,
529 U.S. at 758
n.3. In addition, 
6 || motions in limine will not be considered unless the parties have participated in the meet-and- 
7 || confer process. LR 16-3(a), 
8          Plaintiff seeks to preclude Defendants from testifying concerning what the officers 
9 || witnessed during Plaintiff's apprehension and arrest. 
10          As with the motion to compel, this motion is premature as dispositive motions have not 
11 || yet been filed, making it unclear which (Gf any) claims will move forward. Moreover, the parties 
12 || have not met and conferred on this matter. As a result, the motion is denied, without prejudice, 
13 ||  and subject to renewal if any of Plaintiff's claims survive summary judgment. 
14       Wl.    CONCLUSION 
15          IT IS THEREFORE OREDERED that Plaintiffs motion to compel (ECF No. 85) is 
16 || DENIED as to the production of video footage and DENIED without prejudice as to the request 
17 || to compel the appearance of witnesses at trial. 
18          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion in limine (ECF No. 88) is 
19 || DENIED without prejudice. 
20 
21          DATED: July 29, 2025 
22 
23                                                 Kx pr la     
                                              BRENDA WEKSLER 
24                                              UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
25 
26 
27 
28