Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00902/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00902-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

Caroline Booker, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-00902-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Defendant United States seeks a protective order in response to discovery propounded

by Plaintiffs. For the following reasons, the protective order will be granted.

BACKGROUND

This case involves application of the discretionary function exception of the Federal

Tort Claims Act. Defendant moved for dismissal of this suit on the basis that all of the

alleged misconduct is covered by the exception. In addressing that motion, the Court granted

Plaintiffs’ request to conduct a limited amount of discovery. Plaintiffs immediately

propounded extensive discovery to Defendant. Defendant now claims the “proposed

discovery [is] far in excess” of what the Court allowed. (Doc. 38 at 2). Plaintiffs respond

that the discovery is necessary to determine whether the discretionary function exception

applies. 

Case 2:09-cv-00902-ROS Document 44 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

The discovery dispute stems from the parties’ disagreement on the precise theory

Plaintiffs wish to pursue. According to the complaint, Defendant “owed a duty to Plaintiffs

to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance and guarding of the Brighter Days Mine, and

notice and warning of its presence.” (Doc. 1-4 at 33). Defendant did not place any “signs

or warnings regarding abandoned mine hazards . . . on [Defendant’s] land.” (Id.) This

failure to “give notice of, warn against, fence, barricade or otherwise guard the opening to

the abandoned mineshaft at the Brighter Days Mine constitute[d] a breach of the duty owed

to Plaintiffs.” (Id.). As the mine is not located on federal land, Defendant interpreted these

allegations as attempting to plead a cause of action based on the failure to place signs or

barricades on federal land. Defendant’s motion to dismiss argued “any decision to place or

not to place signs or other obstructions” on federal land “was within the United States’

discretionary function.” (Doc. 15 at 2-3).

In addressing the motion, the Court construed Plaintiff’s complaint in the same

manner as Defendant. That is, the Court interpreted Plaintiffs’ complaint as attempting to

plead a “failure to warn” claim or a failure to install fencing claim regarding federal land.

Thus, the Court allowed discovery on whether Defendant had “a mandatory policy which

[Defendant] failed to follow or on establishing that [Defendant’s] failure to erect warnings

or a barrier is not ‘susceptible to policy analysis.’” (Doc. 29 at 7). It now appears Plaintiffs

wish to pursue a much broader case. In addition to claims based on the failure to erect

warnings or a barrier on federal land, Plaintiffs also wish to pursue claims based on incorrect

maintenance of a road on federal land and the failure to erect signs or barriers on the private

land where the mine was located. These latter claims, however, do not appear in Plaintiffs’

complaint. 

Case 2:09-cv-00902-ROS Document 44 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 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

1

 Plaintiffs make a number of unconvincing procedural arguments against the Court

reaching the merits of the request for a protective order. First, Plaintiffs believe discovery

motions are prohibited. This is true once a scheduling order has been entered. As no

scheduling order has been filed, there is no prohibition on discovery motions. Second,

Plaintiffs argue Defendant must make specific objections to each discovery request. The

Federal Rules do not require a party respond to discovery with specific objections before

seeking a protective order.

2

 For example, Plaintiffs have not pled a claim based on improper road maintenance.

- 3 -

ANALYSIS1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that after a showing of good cause, a

court may issue any protective order “which justice requires to protect a party or a person

from . . . undue burden or expense.” “The burden is upon the party seeking the order to

‘show 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). While the Federal Rules

contemplate a generous amount of discovery, “courts need not condone the use of discovery

to engage in fishing expeditions.” Id. at 1072.

Defendant’s basis for seeking a protective order is that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests

“are beyond the scope of inquiry permitted” by the Court. (Doc. 38 at 3). Defendant

contends the discovery is “unnecessary, overly burdensome, duplicative, and a waste of

resources.” (Id.) These statements are based on Defendant’s understanding that this case

centers on signage and barriers on federal land. Plaintiffs claim the requested discovery is

appropriate because the case is not so limited. 

While it is theoretically possible Plaintiffs have additional claims beyond those

identified by Defendant, Plaintiffs have not pled the additional claims.2

 A party is only

entitled to conduct discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As explained in the Advisory Committee

Notes to the 2000 amendments, this language is meant to “signal[] to the court that it has the

authority to confine discovery to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings, and

signals to the parties that they have no entitlement to discovery to develop new claims or

Case 2:09-cv-00902-ROS Document 44 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 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

3

 According to Defendant, it would be futile for Plaintiffs to plead any claims not

based on the failure to provide signage or barriers on federal land as Plaintiffs’ administrative

tort claim only involved failures on federal land. (Doc. 41 at 3-4). 

- 4 -

defenses that are not already identified in the pleadings.” Again, the complaint is based on

the failure to place signage and barriers on federal land and Plaintiffs are entitled to

discovery only on that alleged failure.

If Plaintiffs wish to obtain the discovery they have propounded, they must amend their

complaint to plead additional theories.3

 Until that occurs, Plaintiffs’ discovery must be

limited to signage and barriers on federal land. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 38) is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs shall propound discovery limited to the failure to place signage or barriers on

federal land.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition to the motion to

dismiss shall be filed no later than August 27, 2010. The reply is due on September 10,

2010.

DATED this 9th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00902-ROS Document 44 Filed 07/09/10 Page 4 of 4