Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01364/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01364-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Melvin De Freitas,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Todd Thomas, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01364-PHX-SRB (ESW)

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Melvin De Freitas is a prisoner confined in the Saguaro 

Correctional Center, a Corrections Corporation of America facility in Eloy, Arizona. On 

July 8, 2013, Plaintiff initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Pending before the Court are a number of motions. The Court has reviewed the motions 

and issues its orders as set forth below.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants’ “Motion to Strike and Remove from the Docket Plaintiff’s 

Second Set of Supplemental Disclosure Statement Plus 304 to 374 

Production of Documents (Doc. #110)” (Doc. 120)

On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Second Set of Supplemental Disclosure 

Statement Plus 304 to 374 Production of Documents” (Doc. 110) (the “Second 

Supplemental Disclosure Statement”). The Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement

supplements Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure Statement that Plaintiff served on Defendants in

October 2014 (Doc. 52). In their Motion (Doc. 120), Defendants request the Court to 

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 137 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 6
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

strike the Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 110). Plaintiff has responded 

in opposition (Doc. 128). Defendants have replied (Doc. 130).

As discussed in the Court’s October 28, 2015 Order (Doc. 113 at 3), “disclosures 

under Rule 26(a)(1) or (2) . . . must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or 

the court orders filing . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Rule 5.2 of the Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure (“LRCiv”) provides that “[a] ‘Notice of Service’ of the disclosures and

discovery requests and responses listed in Rule 5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure must be filed within a reasonable time after service of such papers.” 

Plaintiff has not “used” the Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 110) 

in the proceeding (e.g. by relying upon the document in support of a motion). Plaintiff’s 

filing of the Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 110) instead of a “Notice 

of Service” therefore violates Rule 5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

LRCiv 5.2. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 

110) will be stricken. The Court deems the October 21, 2015 filing date of Plaintiff’s 

Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 110) to be the date of service on 

Defendants. By February 9, 2016, Plaintiff shall file a Notice of Service in compliance 

with LRCiv 5.2 indicating that on October 21, 2015, Plaintiff served the Second 

Supplemental Disclosure Statement on Defendants.

Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 120) also requests that the Court remove Plaintiff’s 

Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement from the docket as it contains the first and 

last names of correctional personnel. (Doc. 120 at 2). The Court construes Defendants’ 

request as a motion to seal Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 

110). 

The public has a general right to inspect and copy judicial records and documents. 

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Although this right is not 

absolute, there is a strong presumption in favor of access to judicial records. To 

overcome this presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must meet (i) the 

“compelling reasons” standard if the record is a dispositive pleading or (ii) the “good 

- 2 -

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 137 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 6
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

cause” standard if the record is a non-dispositive pleading. Kamakana v. City & County 

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 

F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Here, because Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 110) is 

not a dispositive pleading, Defendants must show good cause for sealing the document. 

The “good cause” standard requires a showing that specific prejudice or harm will result 

if the document is not sealed. Phillips ex. rel. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “If a court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure 

of information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests” to decide 

whether it is necessary to seal a document. Id. 

Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 110) lists the first and 

last names of a number of correctional employees. Defendants assert that the full names 

of correctional employees are not divulged to current or former inmates in order to 

protect the employees’ privacy and security. (Doc 120 at 2). The Court recognizes the 

potential safety risks to correctional employees if their full names became public record. 

These potential safety risks outweigh the need for the public’s access to the information. 

The Court finds that Defendants have shown good cause for sealing Plaintiff’s Second 

Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 110). 

For the above reasons, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to seal and strike 

Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. 110). 

B. Plaintiff’s “Notice of Service for Permission to Amend Plaintiff’s Response 

to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions [Doc # 116] Affidavit of Kalima 

Smith” (Doc. 124)

and

Defendants’ “Motion to Strike and Remove from the Docket Plaintiff’s 

Notice of Service for Permission to Amend Plaintiff’s Response to 

Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions [Doc 116-1] Affidavit of Kalima Smith” 

(Doc. 127)

On October 2, 2015, Defendants filed a “Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 

11” (Doc. 104). Defendants allege that Plaintiff willfully and knowingly defrauded the 

Court by submitting witness declarations that Plaintiff knew were false. Plaintiff 

- 3 -

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 137 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 6
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

responded to the Motion for Sanctions on October 27, 2015 (Doc. 112). Defendants 

replied on November 6, 2015 (Doc. 116). In their Reply (Doc. 116 at 1), Defendants 

allege that newly discovered evidence shows that Plaintiff also attempted to bribe inmate 

Kalima Smith to provide a false declaration in support of Plaintiff’s claims. Attached to 

Defendants’ Reply is an affidavit signed by Mr. Smith, which is dated October 29, 2015. 

On November 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Service for Permission to Amend 

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions [Doc # 116] Affidavit of 

Kalima Smith” (Doc. 124).1

 In his Notice, Plaintiff explains that he is amending his 

Response to oppose the affidavit of Mr. Smith. (Doc. 124). Defendants request that the 

Court strike Plaintiff’s Notice (Doc. 124) as an improper sur-reply. (Doc. 127). 

Defendants are correct that neither the Federal nor Local Rules of Civil Procedure 

authorize the filing of a sur-reply. Yet “[i]t is well settled that new arguments cannot be 

made for the first time in reply. This goes for new facts too.” Gold v. Wolpert, 876 F.2d 

1327, 1331 n.6 (7th Cir. 1989). To the extent that a party raises a new argument or 

proffers new evidence and information in a reply brief, that argument or evidence is 

improper because the opposing party is deprived of an opportunity to respond. See Tovar 

v. United States Postal Service, 3 F.3d 1271, 1273 n.3 (9th Cir. 1993). A court cannot 

consider new evidence provided in a reply when the other party does not have an 

opportunity to respond to the evidence. See Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th 

Cir. 1996). Therefore, granting leave to file a sur-reply is generally appropriate when a 

party raises new issues or new evidence in a reply brief. 

Defendants concede that their Reply contains new evidence. (Doc. 116 at 1). 

Plaintiff’s Notice (Doc. 124) addresses that new evidence. Therefore, the Court does not 

find that Plaintiff’s Notice is an improper sur-reply. Moreover, after liberally construing 

the Notice (Doc. 124),2 the Court finds that Plaintiff requested leave of Court to amend 

1 The Clerk of Court docketed the Notice as “Motion to Amend/Correct [Doc.] 

112 Response to Motion.” 

2 Plaintiff captioned the document “Notice of Service for Permission . . .” See 

- 4 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 137 Filed 01/26/16 Page 4 of 6
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

his Response as set forth in the Notice (Doc. 124). Plaintiff’s request is granted. 

Defendants’ “Motion to Strike and Remove from the Docket Plaintiff’s Notice of Service 

for Permission to Amend Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions [Doc 

116-1] Affidavit of Kalima Smith” (Doc. 127) is denied.

C. Defendants “Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11” (Doc. 104)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge only has the authority to 

hear and determine certain “non-dispositive” pretrial motions in cases where the parties 

have not consented to a magistrate judge’s exercise of jurisdiction. A magistrate judge’s 

“jurisdiction to order sanctions . . . is dependent upon whether Rule 11 sanctions are 

characterized as dispositive or non-dispositive of a claim or defense of a party.” 

Maisonville v. F2 America, Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72). “[I]f Rule 11 sanctions are characterized as 

dispositive, then the magistrate [judge] had authority only to ‘enter into the record a 

recommendation for disposition of the matter’ to be reviewed by the district court de 

novo.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)). Non-dispositive 

matters are those “pretrial matter[s] not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

Here, Defendants’ “Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11” (Doc. 104) seeks 

dismissal of this case. The undersigned finds that the Motion is properly characterized as 

dispositive and that a Magistrate Judge does not have the authority to rule on the Motion. 

The undersigned therefore advises the District Judge that the reference to the Magistrate 

Judge may be withdrawn as to the Motion (Doc. 104). 

II. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants “Motion to Strike and Remove from the 

Docket Plaintiff’s Second Set of Supplemental Disclosure Statement Plus 304 to 374 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (pro se pleadings should be construed liberally). 

- 5 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 137 Filed 01/26/16 Page 5 of 6
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 

Production of Documents (Doc. #110)” (Doc. 120) to the extent set forth herein. The 

Clerk of Court is directed to seal Plaintiff’s “Second Set of Supplemental Disclosure 

Statement Plus 304 to 374 Production of Documents” (Doc. 110). The Clerk of Court is 

further directed to strike Plaintiff’s “Second Set of Supplemental Disclosure Statement 

Plus 304 to 374 Production of Documents” (Doc. 110). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by February 9, 2016, Plaintiff shall file a 

Notice of Service in compliance with LRCiv 5.2 indicating that on October 21, 2015, he 

served the “Second Set of Supplement Disclosure Statement Plus 304 to 374 Production 

of Documents” on Defendants. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s “Notice of Service for 

Permission to Amend Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions [Doc # 

116] Affidavit of Kalima Smith” (Doc. 124). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants’ “Motion to Strike and 

Remove from the Docket Plaintiff’s Notice of Service for Permission to Amend 

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions [Doc 116-1] Affidavit of 

Kalima Smith” (Doc. 127). 

Dated this 26th day of January, 2016. 

- 6 - 

Case 2:13-cv-01364-SRB-ESW Document 137 Filed 01/26/16 Page 6 of 6