Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01170/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01170-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

Salvador Reza, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Russell Pearce, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-01170-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant's motion for protective order (doc. 78). We granted

defendant's motion to expedite and ordered plaintiff to file a response no later than 3pm on

July 30, 2012 (doc. 81). Plaintiff filed a late response at 5pm (doc. 82).

This action arises out of plaintiff's exclusion from the Arizona State Senate building

on February 24, 2011 at the direction of defendant, former Senate President. Plaintiff, who

alleged in his complaint that defendant is a racist, claims that defendant banned him from the

Senate building in part due to his Mexican ancestry.

Defendant seeks a protective order preventing plaintiff from deposing him about his

alleged relationship with JT Ready, an individual who defendant describes as "a Neo-Nazi,

white supremacist, mass-murderer of women and children." Mot. at 1. Defendant argues

that any relationship between him and Ready is not relevant, and that this line of questioning

is intended to annoy, embarrass, and oppress him. Specifically, defendant argues that

plaintiff will improperly attempt to associate him with JT Ready in order to harm his

Case 2:11-cv-01170-FJM Document 83 Filed 07/31/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

reputation and hurt his candidacy for the Arizona State Senate.

A party can obtain discovery "that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery is relevant even if it would ultimately be inadmissible at trial

if it is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. Even if

discovery is relevant, we may issue a protective order "to protect a party or person from

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Id. 26(c). The party

seeking the protective order has the burden to demonstrate good cause "by demonstrating

harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery." Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d

1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).

Defendant argues that his alleged relationship with JT Ready is not relevant to

plaintiff's claims that defendant banned him from the State Senate building because of his

Mexican ancestry. If defendant associated with a Neo-Nazi murderer, details about this

relationship may make it slightly more likely that defendant himself was racist. We do not

see how defendant's relationship with Ready could be relevant to plaintiff's claims for any

other reason, and plaintiff does not argue otherwise. Despite plaintiff's argument that this

evidence would be highly probative of defendant's racism, it is highly likely that the evidence

would be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Evidence that connects defendant

to a Neo-Nazi murderer would almost certainly inflame the jury, causing prejudice that

would substantially outweigh its minimal probity. Although Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P. does

not require relevant information to be admissible in order to be discoverable, it does require

that the discovery be "reasonably calculated" to lead to admissible evidence. We conclude

that questioning defendant about his relationship with Ready does not meet this standard.

Moreover, plaintiff acknowledges that he has already discovered evidence showing

that defendant was a "friend, sponsor, and mentor" to Ready. Response at 2. We must limit

the extent of discovery sought if we determine that the discovery sought is cumulative,

duplicative, or can be obtained from another source. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). Plaintiff

has not argued that his line of questioning would reveal new information about defendant's

relationship to Ready. Finally, plaintiff argues that defendant might admit during his

Case 2:11-cv-01170-FJM Document 83 Filed 07/31/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

deposition that he agreed with Ready's racist opinions. Plaintiff may question defendant

about his views on race without getting into the issue of defendant's relationship with Ready.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant's motion for protective order

(doc. 78). Plaintiff is prohibited from deposing defendant concerning his relationship with

JT Ready.

DATED this 30th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01170-FJM Document 83 Filed 07/31/12 Page 3 of 3