Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_21-cv-00189/USCOURTS-azd-4_21-cv-00189-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

Ricardo James Jefferson, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Nicholas Thibault,

Defendant.

No. CV-21-00189-TUC-RM

ORDER 

Plaintiff, who was then confined in the Cochise County Jail and is now confined in 

the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson, brought this pro se civil rights proceeding 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 8.) In the remaining claim in this case, Plaintiff 

alleges Defendant forcibly injected him with an unknown substance in the course of his 

arrest. (Doc. 9 at 4, 9; see also Doc. 8 at 11.) Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Subpoena Defendant(s) Bodycam/Dashcam Images (Doc. 81), to which 

Defendant responded (Doc. 84); Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces 

Tecum Upon Non-Party Witnesses (Doc. 83), to which Defendant responded (Doc. 85); 

and Defendant’s Motion to Allow for Physical Filing of Non-Electronic Exhibit (Doc. 

86).

In his Motion to Subpoena Defendant(s) Bodycam/Dashcam Images, Plaintiff 

requests that this Court subpoena the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the 

Cochise County Sheriff’s Office for dashcam and bodycam video. (Doc. 81 at 1, 3.) 

Plaintiff claims he has “newly discovered evidence” that will show that “the person 

Case 4:21-cv-00189-RM Document 89 Filed 10/31/23 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

responsible for actually injecting Plaintiff is Mr. Williamson,” not Defendant. (Id. at 1-

2.) Plaintiff avers he requires the video “to add clarity to this case.” (Id. at 3.) 

In response, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not offered compelling reasons to 

support his subpoena request because Plaintiff has not identified the “newly discovered 

evidence” or disclosed it. (Doc. 84 at 1.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Motion 

should also be denied because discovery concluded on April 3, 2023, and Plaintiff has not 

requested an extension of discovery nor provided good cause for reopening discovery. 

(Id. at 2.) Defendant notes that he has already produced the dashcam and bodycam video 

in his possession, and Plaintiff’s filings indicate that Plaintiff possesses many hours of 

video. (Id.) Finally, Defendant contends that Plaintiff is not seeking the video for any 

reason related to prosecuting the case against Defendant because Plaintiff has 

acknowledged that Defendant did not inject him. (Id. at 2-3.) 

Per the Court’s Scheduling Order, discovery closed on April 3, 2023. (Doc. 24.) 

As Defendant notes, neither party has filed a request to extend discovery, and Plaintiff 

has not shown good cause to reopen discovery. Plaintiff does not indicate what the 

“newly discovered evidence” is. Defendant has produced the dashcam and bodycam 

video in his possession, and Plaintiff possesses relevant video. Accordingly, the Court 

will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpoena Defendant(s) Bodycam/Dashcam Images (Doc. 

81).

In Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Upon Non-Party 

Witnesses, Plaintiff requests “leave of Court to issue subpoenas upon” the Cochise 

County Sheriff’s Office, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, and Benson Hospital. 

(Doc. 83.)1 Plaintiff seeks the subpoenas to “recover any and all electronic, digital, or 

surveillance equipment (including photos)” pertaining to his criminal case in Cochise 

County Superior Court, Case No. CR202000473. (Id.)

2

1 Plaintiff appears to have filed four copies of the same motion. (Doc. 83 at 1-4.)

2

In his Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Upon Non-Party Witnesses, 

Plaintiff appears to argue that the discovery deadline has been extended. (See Doc. 83 at 

1.) In support of this proposition, Plaintiff cites Defendant’s Motion to Extend Deadline 

to File Dispositive Motion (Doc. 78). While the Court extended the parties’ dispositive 

motion deadline (Doc. 79 at 9), it has not extended the discovery deadline. 

Case 4:21-cv-00189-RM Document 89 Filed 10/31/23 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

In his Response, Defendant avers that Plaintiff has not justified his late discovery 

request. (Doc. 85 at 1.) Defendant reasserts his arguments in response to Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Subpoena Defendant(s) Bodycam/Dashcam Images. (Id. at 2.) Defendant 

further asserts that Plaintiff is “attempting to re-litigate his criminal case,” and Plaintiff’s

subpoena request is unrelated to the excessive force claim against Defendant. (Id.)

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum 

Upon Non-Party Witnesses for the same reasons described above. Chiefly, discovery 

closed on April 3, 2023 (Doc. 24), neither party has filed a request to extend the 

discovery deadline, and Plaintiff has not shown good cause to reopen discovery. 

In Defendant’s Motion to Allow for Physical Filing of Non-Electronic Exhibit, 

Defendant requests leave of Court to file video portions of the August 5, 2020 incident 

that is the subject of Plaintiff’s claims in support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment. (Doc. 86 at 1.) Defendant states that the video recordings show Plaintiff’s 

and Defendant’s actions regarding the incident alleged by Plaintiff. (Id.) The District 

Court of Arizona’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures 

Manual, Section II(N)(2) provides that “[a] party may seek leave of the court to allow the 

non-electronic filing of exhibits and other documents when they are not convertible to 

electronic form (e.g., videotapes, maps, etc.) or are extremely large.” Accordingly, the 

Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Allow for Physical Filing of Non-Electronic 

Exhibit (Doc. 86).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpoena Defendant(s) 

Bodycam/Dashcam Images (Doc. 81) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoena 

Duces Tecum Upon Non-Party Witnesses (Doc. 83) is denied.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Case 4:21-cv-00189-RM Document 89 Filed 10/31/23 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Allow for Physical 

Filing of Non-Electronic Exhibit (Doc. 86) is granted. Defendant may file the exhibits 

identified in his Motion in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section II(N)(2) of 

the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual for the District 

of Arizona.

Dated this 31st day of October, 2023.

Case 4:21-cv-00189-RM Document 89 Filed 10/31/23 Page 4 of 4