Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Greg Moore; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Sean Garnand; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 19-0290 TUC RM (LAB)

ORDER

Pending before the court is a motion, filed by the defendants on January 28, 2020, to

quash the plaintiffs’ subpoena served on Robin Newgren/Internal Revenue Service or, in the

alternative, for a protective order. (Doc. 96) The plaintiffs filed a response on February 10,

2020. (Doc. 98) The defendants filed a reply on February 18, 2020. (Doc. 99)

The plaintiffs in this action claim their constitutional rights were violated when the

defendants executed search warrants in connection with an arson investigation into the

destruction of the Forgeus Apartments on June 8, 2017. (Doc. 1) They bring this action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. s 1983. (Doc. 1, p. 4) The defendants apparently believe that the

plaintiffs may be responsible for the fire that destroyed these apartments. (Doc. 1) The

investigation into the Forgeus fire is ongoing. 

During its investigation into the fire, the Tucson Police Department (TPD) seized the

plaintiffs’ personal and business financial records. (Doc. 1, pp. 11-12) The plaintiffs allege,

among other things, that the defendants encouraged TPD Sergeant Richard Radinsky to open

a financial crime investigation against the plaintiffs. (Doc. 1, pp. 4, 12) This investigation

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 122 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

was closed on April 11, 2018, but the plaintiffs allege it was resurrected at the defendants’

request in retaliation for the plaintiffs’ filing of this case. (Doc. 1, p. 14) The plaintiffs

further allege that the defendant Sean Garnand delivered documents to IRS Agent Robin

Newgren in an effort to convince her to open a criminal investigation against them. (Doc.

1, p. 14) The plaintiffs claim that the defendants acted without reasonable suspicion and in

violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1, p. 21)

In the pending motion, the defendants move pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1),

26(v)(2)(C)(iii), and 45(d)(3)(A)(iii) that the court quash the plaintiffs’ subpoena directed to

Robin Newgren/Internal Revenue Service commanding her to testify at a deposition and

produce documents relating to any communications between “any IRS agent . . . and any

representative of the Tucson Police Department, regarding Eric Gregory Moore . . . and/or

Patricia Moore.” (Doc. 96, p. 1); (Doc. 96-1, p. 2) They move in the alternative for a

protective order forbidding discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(A). (Doc. 96, p. 1)

The defendants argue, among other things, that the subpoena seeks discovery in

violation of the law enforcement investigatory privilege. See Conan v. City of Fontana, 2017

WL 2874623, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (“[T]he law enforcement investigatory privilege is

based on the harm to law enforcement efforts which might arise from public disclosure of

investigatory files.”). The defendants’ earlier filed motion to stay discovery pursuant to the

law enforcement investigatory privilege was granted in part on December 13, 2019. (Docs.

23, 74) In its order, this court held that “Discovery of the TPD arson investigation files for

the Forgeus Apartments is stayed pursuant to the law enforcement investigatory privilege.”

(Doc. 74, p. 4) The plaintiffs appealed the order, but they were unsuccessful. (Doc. 113) 

Rule 45 reads in pertinent part as follows:

On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must

quash or modify a subpoena that:

 ** *

(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception

or waiver applies; or

(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 122 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A).

In their motion, the defendants assert that the plaintiffs are seeking information that

falls within this law enforcement investigatory privilege. (Doc. 96, pp 3-4) The court

agrees. The plaintiffs seek documents that were gathered during TPD’s investigation of the

Forgues fire. Disclosure of those documents and the communications between the

defendants and INS Agent Newgren would compromise the effectiveness of TPD’s

investigative techniques. See (Doc. 23-8, p. 6, par. j) (Police Chief Chris Magnus’s

Declaration) (“Records disclosing information pertaining to crimes other than the Forgues

fire under investigation . . . would undermine the effectiveness of TPD’s investigative . . .

techniques.”) The plaintiffs’ subpoena will be quashed.

The plaintiffs argue to the contrary that the defendants do not have standing to file a

motion to quash a subpoena directed to a third party. (Doc. 98, p. 2) This court, however,

finds nothing in the wording of Rule 45(d)(3)(A) that precludes the defendants from filing

the pending motion. Moreover, the plaintiffs’ proposed reading of the Rule would leave the

defendants with a right but no remedy. The proposed discovery threatens to violate the

defendant’s privilege. Accordingly, the Rules should be interpreted in a way that allows

them to file a motion to quash. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1; see also R. Prasad Indus. v. Flat Irons

Envtl. Sols. Corp., 2014 WL 2804276, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2014) (collecting cases) 

The plaintiffs further argue that because the proposed deponent did not serve an

objection within 14 days of service, all objections to the discovery are waived. (Doc. 98, p.

2) The court does not agree. The 14-day deadline appears in Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(2)(B) and

applies to objections filed by the “person commanded to produce documents . . . .” It does

not apply to a motion to quash filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A). Arthur J.

Gallagher & Co. v. O'Neill, 2017 WL 5713361, at *2 (E.D. La. 2017) (citing 9A C. Wright,

A. Miller, M. Kane, R. Marcus, A. Spencer, A. Steinman, Federal Practice and Procedure

§ 2463 (3d ed. 2017)), on reconsideration, 2017 WL 6524044 (E.D. La. 2017).

The plaintiffs maintain that disclosure of documents to a third party waives the

privilege. (Doc. 98, p. 3) The plaintiffs, however, do not cite any authority for their

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 122 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

argument. The court concludes that while this might be the general rule, disclosure of TPD

documents to the IRS, another law enforcement body, does not waive the law enforcement

investigatory privilege.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion, filed by the defendants on January 28, 2020, to

quash the plaintiffs’ subpoena served on Robin Newgren/Internal Revenue Service or, in the

alternative, for a protective order is GRANTED. (Doc. 96) The subpoena is quashed. 

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2020.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 122 Filed 04/06/20 Page 4 of 4