Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02524/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02524-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Blake Smalley, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. Contino, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-02524-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff sues Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his constitutional 

rights in connection with a police stop and arrest on September 22, 2012. Before the 

Court is Plaintiff’s memorandum in support of discovery of internal affairs records 

(Doc. 59) and a response by Defendants (Doc. 60). Plaintiff seeks production of the 

internal Investigative Affairs Report addressing Defendant Contino’s actions in 

connection with the stop and arrest. Doc. 59 at 1. Defendants contend that Arizona law 

creates a qualified privilege by prohibiting disclosure of the report until the investigation 

is complete, including the appeals process. Doc. 60 at 2; Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 

38-1101(L). 

 Issues of privilege in federal question cases are determined by federal law. Lewis 

v. United States, 517 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 1975). “In determining the federal law of 

privilege in a federal question case, absent a controlling statute, a federal court may 

consider state privilege law. But the rule ultimately adopted, whatever its substance, is 

not state law but federal common law.” Id. 

Case 2:12-cv-02524-DLR Document 64 Filed 10/18/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

 The parties assume, without citing any authority, that A.R.S. § 38-1101(L) creates 

a qualified privilege in litigation, but the statute says nothing about privileges or civil 

litigation. It instead creates an exception to the type of information that must be publicly 

available in a law enforcement officer’s personnel file. When the Arizona legislature has 

created civil litigation privileges, it has done so expressly. For example, the legislature 

has provided that communications between husbands and wives, priests and penitents, 

attorneys and clients, and doctors and patients cannot be inquired into in civil litigation. 

See A.R.S. §§ 12-2232, 12-2233, 12-2234, 12-2235. The provision cited by Defendants 

provides no similar express protection, but instead limits information available through 

the public portions of Defendant Contino’s personnel file. The Court cannot conclude 

from this language that the Arizona legislature intended to create a civil litigation 

privilege like those mentioned above, and has found no Arizona case holding that A.R.S. 

§ 38-1101(L) creates a state privilege. As a result, the Court need not decide whether to 

incorporate such a privilege into federal common law for purposes of this case. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants, within one week of the entry of this order, 

shall produce Christopher Contino’s Investigative Affairs Report in connection with the 

September 22, 2012 incident. 

 Dated this 18th day of October, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02524-DLR Document 64 Filed 10/18/13 Page 2 of 2