Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-04956/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-04956-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

Sylvia Norwood,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Arizona Department of Child Safety, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-04956-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

On April 25, 2019, the parties jointly informed the Court that certain matters were 

“preventing compliance with [then-current] deadlines” for responding to the complaint and 

complying with initial mandatory discovery requirements. (Doc. 17 at 1-2.) The parties 

noted that this case arises out of the death of the Plaintiff’s seven-year-old daughter, which 

Plaintiff alleges was due in whole or in part to Defendants’ alleged unconstitutional 

conduct, and that the decedent child’s father and step-mother were being prosecuted in 

Maricopa County Superior Court in the case of State of Arizona v. Germayne L. 

Cunnningham, CR2017-006221. (Id. at 2.) The presiding judge in that matter had sealed 

all criminal investigation records, so the parties averred that they were “unable to receive 

or release any of the records needed for the litigation” of the action pending before this 

Court. (Id.) The parties asked the Court to stay this litigation while they sought an 

amendment to the superior court judge’s order that would permit release of the records. 

(Id. at 3.) The Court granted the request (Doc. 18) as well as two requests for extensions, 

such that this case was stayed until October 30, 2019 (Doc. 22).

Case 2:18-cv-04956-DWL Document 38 Filed 04/22/20 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

On October 30, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation seeking further extension of the 

case deadlines. (Doc. 23.) The parties explained that the superior court judge issued an 

order unsealing the records, but the amount of records to be reviewed and redacted 

exceeded 5,000 pages. (Id. at 2.) The parties asked for 120 days (in addition to the time 

that had already passed—the superior court order issued on October 2, 2019) to allow 

sufficient time for Defendants to review and redact the records and provide them to 

Plaintiff. (Id.) On November 4, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation and 

extended the deadline for Defendants to respond to the first amended complaint (“FAC”) 

to January 28, 2020. (Doc. 24.)

On January 28, 2020, Defendants filed motions to dismiss. (Docs. 26, 27.)

On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time, explaining that 

the State of Arizona was still in the process of reviewing and redacting the unsealed records 

that had been released by the superior court judge’s October 2, 2019 order and had not yet 

disclosed those records to Plaintiff. (Doc. 31 at 2.) Plaintiff noted that the “State of 

Arizona and the City of Goodyear, who are currently holding the requested records . . . are 

attempting to dismiss Plaintiff[’s] claims based on information from the redacted records, 

which have not been reviewed by Plaintiff[],” and requested “an opportunity to review 

these records and acquire any necessary information that would support its case against the 

parties.” (Id.) Plaintiff further noted that she had “requested these records via a FOIA 

prior to initiating litigation.” (Id.)

On February 12, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, 

ruling that Plaintiff “may have 45 days after Defendants disclose the unsealed documents 

in Case No. CR2017-006221 to file [her] response to the pending motions to dismiss.” 

(Doc. 32.)

Nearly two months passed. On April 7, 2020, the Court ordered the parties to file a 

status report, “setting forth the date on which Plaintiffs received the unsealed documents 

from Defendants.” (Doc. 35.)

On April 17, 2020, the parties filed the court-ordered status report, which stated that 

Case 2:18-cv-04956-DWL Document 38 Filed 04/22/20 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

Defendants Arizona Department of Child Safety and Gregory McKay (“State Defendants”) 

served Plaintiffs with their responses to Mandatory Initial Discovery on February 27, 2020 

and supplemented this disclosure on April 10, 2020. (Doc. 37 at 2.) Defendants City of 

Goodyear and Regan McCarthy (“Goodyear Defendants”) served their Responses to 

Mandatory Initial Discovery on February 28, 2020, but they have not yet finished redacting 

and disclosing the unsealed records. (Id.)

This is dismaying. To be clear, back on November 4, 2019, when the Court 

extended the deadline for Defendants to respond to the FAC to January 28, 2020 in order 

to allow Defendants ample time to review and redact the unsealed records, the Court 

expected that this review-and-redact process would be completed during the 120-day 

extension. And then, back on February 12, 2020, when the Court ordered that Plaintiff 

could have 45 days after Defendants disclosed the unsealed documents to file her response 

to the pending motions to dismiss, the Court expected that the unsealed documents would 

be promptly disclosed.

Therefore, it was an unhappy surprise to learn—on April 17, 2020, a full six months 

and two weeks after the superior court judge issued the long-awaited order unsealing the 

records necessary to litigate this case—that the Goodyear Defendants still had not disclosed 

all of the records.

The Goodyear Defendants will complete their redactions and disclose the remainder 

of the records by April 29, 2020.

Furthermore, the State Defendants and Plaintiff seem to disagree about the meaning 

of the Court’s February 12, 2020 order. The State Defendants maintain that Plaintiff should 

have 45 days from the date of the State Defendants’ supplemental disclosures (April 10, 

2020) to respond to the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 37 at 3.) Plaintiff 

maintains that she should have 45 days after the date on which she finally receives all of 

the unsealed records that have been in Defendants’ possession since last October to respond 

to both motions. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff’s position makes the most sense. Rather than having two separate 

Case 2:18-cv-04956-DWL Document 38 Filed 04/22/20 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

deadlines for Plaintiff to respond to the two motions to dismiss, Plaintiff shall have 45 days 

from the new deadline for the Goodyear Defendants to complete their disclosure.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Goodyear Defendants will disclose the remainder of the 

records, and shall file a notice so indicating, by April 29, 2020.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED clarifying that Plaintiff shall have 45 days from 

April 29, 2020—that is, until June 15, 2020—to respond to the two pending motions to 

dismiss.

Dated this 22nd day of April, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-04956-DWL Document 38 Filed 04/22/20 Page 4 of 4