Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01152/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01152-0/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 

Chad Lucas Harrison, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01152-PHX-DLR (ESW)

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is an inmate in custody at the Arizona Department of Corrections. He 

filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants violated his 

civil rights. Plaintiff filed a document on October 22, 2014 (Doc. 62) which the Court 

has deemed to be a Motion to Compel. See Order filed October 31, 2014 (Doc. 66). 

Plaintiff asserts that documents identified in his Request for Production dated August 4, 

2014 (Doc. 62, Ex. D) have not been produced. Plaintiff fails to provide any specific 

objection to the Defendants’ responses to Request for Production numbers 3, 11-13, and 

15. Therefore, the Court must limit its review and analysis to Request for Production 

numbers 1-2, 4-10, and 14 (Doc. 62, Ex. D). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) and L.R.Civ. 

7.2(j). Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 62) is denied as to Request for Production 

numbers 3, 11-13, and 15. 

Case 2:13-cv-01152-DLR-ESW Document 76 Filed 12/24/14 Page 1 of 8
- 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 

DISCUSSION 

I. Duty to in Good Faith Confer or Attempt to Confer with Opposing Party Before 

Filing a Motion to Compel 

 Rule 37(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a party’s motion to 

compel include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to 

confer with the opposing party in an effort to obtain the sought discovery without Court 

intervention. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(j), as well as this Court’s Scheduling 

Order (Doc. 17), further requires personal or telephonic consultation between the parties 

prior to the filing of a motion to compel. Plaintiff failed to include his required 

certification that such efforts were actually made. For this reason alone, the Motion to 

Compel (Doc. 62) may be denied. However, the Court has reviewed the merits of the 

discovery at issue for reasons of judicial economy. 

II. Plaintiff’s Request for Production 

 The law provides that a party may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged 

matter that is relevant to a party’s claim. The relevant information need not be 

admissible at trial if it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). All discovery is, however, subject to reasonable 

limitations by the Court when “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, 

the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the 

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). 

 Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment rights when Defendants approved Plaintiff for protective segregation but did 

not provide adequate protection for Plaintiff from injury by other inmates. Plaintiff seeks 

a number of items in his Request for Production which Plaintiff argues are relevant to his 

case. 

A. Request No. 1: “Any and all e-mails between Defendant Charles Ryan and 

Case 2:13-cv-01152-DLR-ESW Document 76 Filed 12/24/14 Page 2 of 8
- 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 

Stacey Crabtree and Marlene Coffey concerning the Plaintiff’s requests for 

safety and classification and appeals.” (Doc. 62 at 23)

 Plaintiff identifies Marlene Coffey as a protective custody administrator for the 

Department of Corrections. Though Ms. Coffey is not a named Defendant, she is in the 

employ of the institution at which Plaintiff is incarcerated and where his alleged injuries 

were sustained. Mr. Ryan and Ms. Crabtree are named as Defendants. The Plaintiff has 

limited the scope of the email requested to those emails “concerning Plaintiff’s requests 

for safety and classification and appeals.” The identified topics are arguably relevant to 

Plaintiff’s claim or calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the 

Court interprets the request to limit the email correspondence among the identified 

sender/recipients only and the information regarding only Plaintiff. Specifically, emails 

from any of the three named individuals to any of the three individuals about Plaintiff. 

The Court imposes a timeframe of 2008 to the present, as Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) 

alleges continuing harm from 2008. 

 Therefore, the Motion to Compel (Doc. 62) is granted in part as set forth herein as 

to Request for Production No. 1. If emails obtained by Defendants refer to additional 

inmates, an in camera inspection and redaction may be requested. Defendants indicate 

that, as a result of their search to date, no emails exist that fall within the parameters set 

forth by the Court. Defendants have a continuing obligation to disclose information 

deemed relevant by the Court. 

B. Request No. 2: “Any and all grievances, inmate letters and complaints, 

classification documents and appeals received by prison staff, Defendants and 

their agents concerning Plaintiff from 2008 until present day Aug. 4th, 2014.” 

(Doc. 62 at 23)

 The Court finds that all grievances, inmate letters, complaints, and appeals 

generated by Plaintiff to the Defendants, prison staff, and Defendants’ agents from 2008 

to August 4, 2014 are relevant and discoverable. Classification documents as identified 

by the Defendants in their Response (Doc. 73 at 7) are also relevant. The described 

Case 2:13-cv-01152-DLR-ESW Document 76 Filed 12/24/14 Page 3 of 8
- 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 

methodology for disclosure set forth by Defendants is deemed reasonable. (Doc. 73 at 7-

9) However, whether Plaintiff was actually housed with an inmate who actively appeared 

on Plaintiff’s “Do Not House With List” from 2008 when Defendants were seeking to 

separate the individuals is discoverable information. If such an event occurred, then the 

time period and housing location for the event shall be identified. Further briefing 

regarding damages and security issues will be necessary before the Court would consider 

whether the identity of any such inmates on Plaintiff’s “Do Not House With List” are 

discoverable in this case. 

C. Request No. 4: “All documentation listing all inmates (total number) being 

housed at ASPC Complex Lewis Detention Centers, and isolation cells for 

refusing to house, requesting protection from dangerous inmates and those 

incident reports.” (Doc. 62 at 24) 

 The Court sustains Defendants’ objection to Request No. 4 for the reasons set 

forth by the Defendants in their Response (Doc. 73 at 9-10). Statistical information 

capturing numerical bed capacity, inmate population, and length of stay averages from 

2008 is a matter of public record. 

D. Request No. 5: “All documentation and e-mails, notes referring to current 

policy at AZ State Prison Complex Lewis Protective Segregation units, on 

how to handle inmate requests for protection, no longer being able to use 

Policy 805 Protective Segregation Custody as it no longer applies to inmates 

already in P.S.” (Doc. 62 at 24) 

 The Court finds that Defendants’ written policies and procedures which discuss 

Protective Segregation and Protective Segregation limits as related to inmate safety and 

inmate requests for protection are relevant and discoverable. Specific Department of 

Correction actions regarding specific inmate requests other than Plaintiff’s requests are 

not. Unwritten policy is not discoverable by a Request for Production of Documents. 

The Defendants have complied with production of relevant documentation as outlined in 

Defendants’ Response. (Doc. 73 at 10-12) Defendants continue to provide relevant 

Case 2:13-cv-01152-DLR-ESW Document 76 Filed 12/24/14 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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 

email as discovered, if any. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 62) is granted in part and 

denied in part as set forth herein. 

E. Request No. 6: “Total number of aggrivated [sic] refusal to house tickets 

given out since 2009 to all inmates housed at AZ State Prison Complex Lewis 

P.S. units to present day.” (Doc. 62 at 24) 

 The Court finds that the information sought is not properly posited as a Request 

for Production. The Defendants’ objection is sustained. 

F. Request No. 7: “All documents and notes for staff at Lewis Complex on how 

to handle inmates charged with aggrivated [sic] to house tickets, what is the 

current policy on what property they are allowed to possess in detention cells, 

no store for refusal to house inmates, no phone calls. They have a current 

policy stating refusals to house get no personal property in cells. No store, no 

phone, etc. I need these documents please.” (Doc. 62 at 24)

 The Court finds that the information sought is relevant. However, Defendants 

have produced Department Orders 704, 803, 804, and 909 in response to Plaintiff’s 

compound Request No. 7. The Court has no reasonable basis to conclude that 

Defendants have not fully complied with Plaintiff’s request. Therefore, the Motion to 

Compel (Doc. 62) for Request No. 7 is denied. 

G. Request No. 8: “All documents relating to total number of assaults physical 

and sexual assaults reported by victims on all Arizona State Prison Complex 

Lewis Protective Custody yards from 2008 to present day Aug. 4th, 2014.” 

(Doc. 62 at 25) 

 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for sexual assault records is overly broad, 

unduly burdensome, and not relevant to Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff has not alleged that he 

is the victim of a sexual assault as a result of Defendants’ alleged conduct. In addition, 

the medical records of third parties are privileged. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 

62) is denied as to reports regarding sexual assaults. 

 With regard to Plaintiff’s request for documents relating to physical assaults from 

Case 2:13-cv-01152-DLR-ESW Document 76 Filed 12/24/14 Page 5 of 8
- 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 

2008-August 4, 2014 which occurred in Lewis Protective Custody yards, the Court finds 

that incidents of physical assaults during such time period are relevant only if (i) the 

assault occurred at the same facility at which Plaintiff was housed and (ii) the assault 

occurred while Plaintiff was housed at that facility. However, all identifying information 

as to the inmates involved in the assaults shall be redacted from the documents. Further 

security issues which such reports may raise shall be presented to the Court for in camera 

review as unredacted documents with a corresponding set of proposed redacted 

documents for the Court’s consideration. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 62) 

regarding assault incident reports as further limited above is granted. 

H. Request No. 9: “All documents and data showing total number of known 

prison gang members being housed on all Lewis Complex Protective Custody 

units- STG and Renouncers.” (Doc. 62 at 25) 

 The Court finds that the Motion to Compel (Doc. 62) regarding this item is now 

moot. Defendants have indicated in their response that “validated gang members are 

housed at ASPC-Eyman, Browning Unit. Only gang members who have renounced their 

gang affiliations have [sic] are housed on protective custody yards.” (Doc. 73 at 16) The 

response is deemed sufficient to the request. 

I. Request No. 10: “All documents notes or data showing what usually happens 

to known ‘snitches,’ ‘informants’ and inmates accused of sex crimes against 

children or Arizona prison yards where other dangerous inmates can have 

contact with these inmates.” (Doc. 62 at 25) 

 The Defendants’ objection is sustained as to Request No. 10. Plaintiff’s request is 

vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant. 

J. Request No. 14: “Documents and all reporting concerning all inmate deaths 

on Lewis P.C. yards from assaults, drug overdose and any other reasons from 

2008 to present.” (Doc. 62 at 26) 

 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request regarding reports concerning inmate deaths 

from drug overdose and “any other reason” is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not 

Case 2:13-cv-01152-DLR-ESW Document 76 Filed 12/24/14 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

relevant to the issues raised by Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants. Reports regarding 

inmate deaths occurring from 2008 to the present are relevant only if (i) the death 

resulted from an assault that occurred at the same protective custody yard at which 

Plaintiff was housed and (ii) the assault occurred while Plaintiff was housed at that yard. 

Such reports shall be redacted to delete all identifying information of the decedent and 

any other inmates. If further release of information is alleged to be a risk to security, the 

Defendants shall present the unredacted reports for in camera inspection with a proposed 

redaction for the Court’s consideration. 

K. Plaintiff’s Request that all Discovery be Sent Directly to Plaintiff and that he 

Maintain Possession of CO III Logs. (Doc 62 at 20) 

 The Court deems the issue of delivery and possession of ADOC paperwork to be a 

request for injunctive relief. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a Magistrate Judge does 

not have the authority to decide motions for injunctive relief. The Magistrate Judge 

therefore advises that the reference is ready to be withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s requests for 

injunctive relief contained in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 62). 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 62) is granted as to 

Request for Production numbers 1-2, 5, 8, and 14, subject to the limitations as set forth 

herein. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 62) is denied as to 

Request for Production numbers 3-4, 6-7, 9-13, and 15. 

IT IS ORDERED that for good cause shown, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge 

Deadline to Submit Interrogatories (Doc. 62 at 19) is granted. It is ordered extending 

Plaintiff’s deadline to propound interrogatories on Defendants for another 20 days from 

the date of the filing of this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED withdrawing the reference to the Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-01152-DLR-ESW Document 76 Filed 12/24/14 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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 

as to Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief contained in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 

(Doc. 62). 

 Dated this 24th day of December, 2014. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01152-DLR-ESW Document 76 Filed 12/24/14 Page 8 of 8