Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

Greg Moore; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Sean Garnand; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 19-0290 TUC RM (LAB)

ORDER

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery and for

expenses and attorney fees filed on August 24, 2020. (Doc. 208) The defendants filed a

response on September 8, 2020. (Doc. 220) The plaintiffs filed a reply on September 15,

2020. (Doc. 225) 

The plaintiffs in this action claim their constitutional rights were violated when the

defendants executed search warrants in connection with a Tucson Police Department arson

investigation into the destruction of the Forgeus Apartments on June 8, 2017. (Doc. 1) The

plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1, p. 4) The first warrant, for

DNA and other personal effects, was executed on June 9, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 8) The second

warrant, for financial documents, was executed on June 14, 2017. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10) The

defendants apparently believe that the plaintiffs may be responsible for the fire that destroyed

these apartments. (Doc. 1) The investigation into the Forgeus fire is ongoing. 

In the pending motion, the plaintiffs move pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1),

37(a)(3)(B)(iv), 37(a)(5)(A), and Local Rule 37.1 that the court compel the defendants to

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 244 Filed 11/05/20 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 -

produce (1) “6/9/17 records of DNA seizures,” (2) “6/9/17 jail/substation intake, processing

and discharge records . . .” and (3) “[a]ll documents relevant to the . . . accusations made by

Plaintiffs in their Complaint to the Office of Professional Standards (formerly “Internal

Affairs”) on May 31, 2019 . . . .” (Doc. 208, pp. 2-3) 

In general, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that

is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,

considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv), “A party seeking discovery may move

for an order compelling . . . production . . . if . . . a party fails to produce documents.”

Discussion

First, the plaintiffs seek records concerning the DNA sample collected from Mr.

Moore pursuant to the first search warrant. In their initial response to the request for

production, the defendants stated that all responsive documents have been produced. (Doc.

220, p. 2) Since then, the defendants have identified an additional document, but that

document “was neither created, nor maintained, by Det. Garnand.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P.

34(a)(1) (Documents must be produced if they are “in the responding party’s possession,

custody or control.”).

The plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ counsel “has admitted that documents exist,

admitted the relevance, and simply refused to produce.” (Doc. 225, p. 1) They do not

address the defendants’ implicit assertion that the records are not in their “possession,

custody or control.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1) It appears that the newly discovered

document does not fall within the scope of discoverable material. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1)

The plaintiffs’ motion will be denied as it relates to this request for production.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 244 Filed 11/05/20 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

- 3 -

With respect to the second category of documents, Jail Records, the defendants

affirmatively state that they have disclosed all records responsive to this request. (Doc. 220,

p. 2) The plaintiffs do not argue the contrary. (Doc. 225) The plaintiffs’ motion will be

denied as it relates to this request for production.

The third category of documents concerns the Complaint the plaintiffs lodged with

the City’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS). The plaintiffs explain that they want to

know what investigations have been made into their allegations that the defendants have

engaged in wrongdoing. The documents already disclosed to the plaintiffs, however, include

a letter dated September 6, 2019 from Assistant Chief Silva. (Doc. 220, pp. 4-5) Silva

explains that the plaintiffs’ OPS Complaint will not be addressed until the outstanding civil

litigation between the plaintiffs and the City is resolved. Id. It appears that there are no

other responsive documents in the defendants’ possession.

The plaintiffs argue in their reply that the OPS documents are relevant to the case and

are therefore discoverable. They do not, however, offer any argument contradicting the

defendants’ assertion that additional relevant documents do not exist. The plaintiffs’ motion

will be denied as it relates to this request for production.

The plaintiffs further move that this court award expenses and attorney fees pursuant

to Rule 37(a)(5)(A). Fed.R.Civ.P. The Rule reads as follows:

If the motion is granted--or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided

after the motion was filed--the court must, after giving an opportunity to be

heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion,

the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s

reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.

But the court must not order this payment if:

(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the

disclosure or discovery without court action;

(ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was

substantially justified; or

(iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). “There is no bright line standard for substantial justification.”

Salary v. Cty. of Orange, 2019 WL 2902695, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2019). “Courts generally focus

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 244 Filed 11/05/20 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

- 4 -

on the quality of the justification and the genuineness of the dispute and whether an impartial

observer would agree that a party had good reason to withhold discovery.” Id. (punctuation

modified) 

The plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery will be denied. Accordingly, their motion

for reasonable expenses and attorney fees will also be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery and for expenses and

attorney fees filed on August 24, 2020 is DENIED. (Doc. 208) 

DATED this 5th day of November, 2020.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 244 Filed 11/05/20 Page 4 of 4