Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01705/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01705-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Scott Allen Patzke, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 02-1705-PHX-NVW (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #74) based on Defendants' alleged

failure to comply with the court's scheduling and discovery order. Defendants filed a

Response (Doc. #77) on September 27, 2005. Plaintiff has not filed a reply.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not complied with the scheduling and

discovery order (Doc. #39) filed on November 10, 2004. Plaintiff argues that some of

Defendants' disclosures were made after the deadline, that some of the documents in the

disclosure statements have not been produced, that no expert witness reports have been

produced and that affidavits and exhibits attached to Defendants' motion for summary

judgment should have been disclosed earlier.

Regarding timeliness, Defendants submitted their initial disclosure statement on the

December 8, 2004 deadline. Doc. #41. They submitted a supplemental disclosure statement

on July 8, 2005, the discovery deadline. Doc. #68. In the supplemental disclosure, they

indicated that they would produce the materials disclosed within a reasonable time of

Case 2:02-cv-01705-NVW-ECV Document 81 Filed 10/17/05 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 -

receiving them from the Department of Corrections, to the extent that the materials were not

restricted. Defendants state that they produced the documents on August 31, 2005. Doc. #77

at 2. Defendants then filed a second supplemental disclosure on August 26, 2005 to correct

a mistake in a prior disclosure statement. Doc. #69. While Defendants should have sought

leave of the court to produce documents after the discovery deadline, they informed Plaintiff

that the documents contained in the supplemental disclosure would be produced in a

reasonable time and they were. Plaintiff has not presented sufficient reasons to impose

sanctions.

Regarding Plaintiff's contention that some documents have still not been produced,

Defendants contend that they have produced every item listed in the supplemental disclosure

except for items already in Plaintiff's possession and items that cannot be disclosed for

security reasons. Doc. #77 at 3. Defendants offer to provide the court with a full set of the

documents disclosed to Plaintiff to support its position. Plaintiff has not filed a reply to

Defendants' response and therefore he presents nothing to dispute Defendants' reasons for

withholding certain documents. Plaintiff has therefore failed to show that sanctions are

warranted. If Plaintiff believes he is entitled to certain documents that have not been

produced, the proper remedy is a motion to compel, but only after complying with LRCiv

7.2(j).

Regarding Plaintiff's claim that no expert witness reports have been filed, Defendants

state that the doctors identified in their disclosure statement are fact witnesses, not expert

witnesses. Defendants state that they do not intend to call any of them as expert witnesses

and therefore they need not produce expert witness reports. Absent a reply from Plaintiff,

the court has no basis to dispute Defendants' representations regarding their intended use of

the doctor witnesses. Plaintiff has not shown that this is a basis to impose sanctions.

Finally, Plaintiff says that affidavits and attachments filed with Defendants' motion

for summary judgment should have been disclosed previously. The summary judgment

motion was filed on September 2, 2005, less than two months after the discovery deadline.

Plaintiff concedes that none of the affidavits existed before the discovery deadline. Doc. #74

Case 2:02-cv-01705-NVW-ECV Document 81 Filed 10/17/05 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 -

at 2. If the affidavits were prepared specifically to support the summary judgment motion

and did not exist beforehand, Plaintiff has no basis to argue that they should have been

disclosed earlier. Regarding other attachments, Plaintiff refers to them only generally and

provides no specific information about the attachments or why they should have been

disclosed earlier. Moreover, because Plaintiff received the affidavits and attachments within

a reasonable period after the discovery deadline, the court finds no reason to impose

sanctions. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #74) is denied.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:02-cv-01705-NVW-ECV Document 81 Filed 10/17/05 Page 3 of 3