Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02756/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02756-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

- 1 - 

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 

Gary Donahoe and Cherie Donahoe, 

husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, 

husband and wife; Andrew Thomas and 

Anne Thomas, husband and wife; Lisa 

Aubuchon and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and 

husband; Deputy Chief David Hendershott 

and Anna Hendershott, husband and wife; 

Peter Spaw and Jane Doe Spaw, husband 

and wife; Maricopa County, a municipal 

entity; Jon Does I-X; Jane Does I-X; Black 

Corporations I-V; and White Partnerships IV, 

Defendants. 

No. CV 10-02756-PHX-NVW

CONSOLIDATED WITH: 

Sandra Wilson and Paul Wilson, husband 

and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, 

husband and wife; et al., 

Defendants. 

CV 10-02758-PHX-NVW

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 572 Filed 08/28/12 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Conley D. Wolfswinkel, a single man; 

Brandon D. Wolswinkel, a single man; 

Ashton A. Wolfswinkel, a single man; 

Vanderbilt Farms, LLC, an Arizona limited 

liability company; ABCDW, LLC, an 

Arizona limited liability company; Stone 

Canyon, LLC, an Arizona limited liability 

company; Vistoso Partners, LLC, an 

Arizona limited liability company; and W 

Harquahala, LLC, an Arizona limited 

liability company; 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, 

husband and wife; et al., 

Defendants. 

CV 11-00116-PHX-NVW

Mary Rose Wilcox and Earl Wilcox, wife 

and husband, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, 

husband and wife; et al., 

Defendants.

CV 11-00473-PHX-NVW

Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and Kathleen 

Stapley, husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, 

husband and wife; et al., 

Defendants.

CV 11-00902-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Maricopa County’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration and 

Modification of May 31, 2012 (Doc. 514) and the Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set 

Aside the Court’s May 26, 2011 Order Dismissing William Montgomery as a PartyDefendant (Doc. 565). The County seeks a modification of this Court’s May 31 order 

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 572 Filed 08/28/12 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

which required Maricopa County to produce documents in the possession of the 

Maricopa County Attorney’s office that are responsive to discovery requests from the 

Wolfswinkel plaintiffs. The County Attorney, Bill Montgomery, has taken the position 

that he is not required to produce the documents under his control to the County, and that 

as a non-party to this suit, he is not compelled to cooperate with the Wolfswinkel 

plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Nonetheless, after he was served with a subpoena for the 

documents by the County’s attorney, Montgomery complied with the subpoena and 

produce the requested documents. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is 

effectively moot. 

Nonetheless, it is likely that the County Attorney’s office will need to cooperate in 

this litigation because the former County Attorney, Andrew Thomas, is a defendant 

related to actions he took in his capacity as County Attorney and documents in the 

County Attorney’s office will likely need to be produced in discovery. The Wolfswinkel 

plaintiffs initially named Montgomery as a defendant in this action in his official capacity 

as County Attorney (Doc. 1 in CV11-0116). Montgomery moved to dismiss the 

complaint on the basis that he did not take office until after the alleged wrongdoing 

underlying the complaint occurred (Doc. 18 in CV11-0116). In their response to 

Montgomery’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 55 in CV10-2756), the Wolfswinkel plaintiffs 

acknowledged that they did not seek any relief against Montgomery personally, but that 

in order to recover damages for actions taken by Thomas in his official capacity as 

County Attorney, they were suing Montgomery in his official capacity to hold the County 

responsible for the actions of Thomas, the former office holder. 

The Court granted Montgomery’s motion to dismiss on the basis that naming 

Montgomery was redundant to naming the County (Doc. 70 in CV10-2756). However, 

because Montgomery has asserted that as a non-party, he is not required to cooperate 

with the discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, the efficiency 

of dismissing Montgomery is no longer present. The Court has no doubt that all of 

Maricopa County’s officers are responsible for complying with the County’s discovery 

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 572 Filed 08/28/12 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Officers like the County 

Attorney bear the County’s responsibility and will render the County liable for sanctions 

for not meeting that responsibility. The Court will therefore grant the Wolfswinkel 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside the Court’s May 26, 2011 Order Dismissing William 

Montgomery as a Party-Defendant (Doc. 565) and give the Wolfswinkel plaintiffs leave 

to amend their complaint to name Montgomery as a defendant in this action, thus 

avoiding this conflict. The further amended complaint must be served upon the County 

Attorney, and any challenge to the further amended complaint other than challenges 

concerning process will be summarily denied. 

IT IS ORDERED that Maricopa County’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration 

and Modification of May 31, 2012 (Doc. 514) is denied. 

IT IF FURTHER ORDERED that the Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside 

the Court’s May 26, 2011 Order Dismissing William Montgomery as a Party-Defendant 

(Doc. 565) is granted. The Wolfswinkel plaintiffs are given leave without further order 

of the Court to file an amended complaint by September 7, 2012, to name Montgomery 

as a defendant in this action. The further amended complaint must be served upon the 

County Attorney, and any challenge to the further amended complaint other than 

challenges concerning process will be summarily denied. 

Dated this 28th day of August, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 572 Filed 08/28/12 Page 4 of 4