Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290-13/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 filed on May

11, 2020. (Doc. 156) The defendants filed a response on May 21, 2020. (Doc. 165) The

plaintiffs filed a reply on May 28, 2020. (Doc. 172) 

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

defendants executed search warrants in connection with an 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 for an order compelling the defendant Sean Garnand to answer

Interrogatories 20-25. (Doc. 156) 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 210 Filed 08/24/20 Page 1 of 5
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 -

Discussion

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iii):

A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer,

designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if . . . a party

fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33 . . . .

Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 33 permits a party to serve written interrogatories. Fed.R.Civ.P. The

interrogatories “may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b).”

Fed.R.Civ.P.33(a)(2). 

And, Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery requests “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.

Interrogatory 20

This interrogatory states as follows: “With regard to any arson investigation done by

you that resulted in the filing of criminal charges, please: a. Identify the case name, docket

number [and] court; b. State whether you gave evidence before a grand jury from which an

indictment issued, and, if so, state the date(s) of your testimony in each case; c. State whether

you gave evidence in any hearing or trial of any case, identifying (1) which case, (2) the

nature of the hearing, i.e., motion to suppress, trial; (3) the date(s) of your testimony.” (Doc.

156-2, pp. 1-3)

The plaintiffs assert that these interrogatories are relevant because Detective Garnand

has put into issue his expertise to determine what constitutes probable cause in the first

instance. (Doc. 156, p. 5) They conclude that these interrogatories are relevant on the

judicial deception and First Amendment retaliation claims. (Doc. 156, p. 6) This argument

is somewhat difficult to follow. 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 210 Filed 08/24/20 Page 2 of 5
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 -

The plaintiffs seem to be arguing that if the search warrants are not supported by

probable cause, then they will argue that Garnand knew they were not supported by probable

cause and chose to file them anyway for some illegitimate purpose. And these interrogatories

will help show that Garnand knew the warrants were not supported by probable cause

because they will show that he knew what facts make up probable cause and what facts do

not. The court is not convinced.

Each arson investigation entails its own unique facts and circumstances. Discovery

into the arson investigations that Garnand conducted in the past will shed little light on the

arson investigation that Garnand conducted in the pending action. At best, the interrogatories

posed by the plaintiffs would reveal broad generalities such as: Garnand believes arsonist

sometimes burn buildings for financial gain or Garnand believes arsonists sometimes use

flammable materials to set their fires. 

Moreover, Garnand does not keep records of his past investigations in a form that

would allow him to easily track which investigations resulted in prosecutions and which

prosecutions required him to give testimony. To properly respond to the plaintiffs’

interrogatories, he would have “to undertake a file-by-file review” of the “more than 500

arson investigations in which he has participated since joining TPD (the Tucson Police

Department) over 20 years ago,” which he estimates “would likely take hundreds of hours.”

(Doc. 165-2, p. 3) 

The court concludes that “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs

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

Interrogatory 21

This interrogatory asks the following: “State whether you have been disqualified from

giving evidence or opinions in any case, civil or criminal, a. Identify each case by name,

docket number and court, b. State the reason(s) you were disqualified from giving evidence

or opinions.” (Doc. 165-2, p. 4) Garnand answered this Interrogatory, “No.” Id. The

plaintiffs do not explain why this answer is unsatisfactory.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 210 Filed 08/24/20 Page 3 of 5
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

 The defendants apparently believe that the fire that destroyed the Forgeus

Apartments displayed similarities to the fire that destroyed an apartment on Blacklidge Drive

in 2011. (Doc. 1, p. 10)

- 4 -

Interrogatories 22, 23, 24, and 25

Interrogatories 22 and 23 ask for the “text or publications upon which you rely in

conducting arson investigations” and the “text or publications you consider authoritative in

the investigation of arson.” (Doc. 156-2, pp. 4-7) 

Interrogatory 24 asks: “With regard to any opinions regarding the arson at 2427-2429

N. Forgeus Avenue on June 8, 2017, that you have arrived at: a. State each opinion, b.

Identify each document you reviewed in arriving at the opinions, c. Identify each person

upon whose counsel you relied in forming each opinion.” (Doc. 156-2, pp. 9-11)

Interrogatory 25 asks: “With regard to any opinions regarding the arson at 3954 E.

Blacklidge Drive1

 Unit # 3 on March 30, 2011 that you have arrived at: a. State each

opinion, b. Identify each document you reviewed in arriving at the opinions, c. Identify each

person upon whose counsel you relied in forming each opinion.” (Doc. 156-2, pp.11-12)

These interrogatories ask for information that is subject to this court’s order issued on

December 13, 2019 staying discovery into the Tucson Police Department’s arson

investigation files for the Forgeus Apartments in accordance with the law enforcement

investigatory privilege See (Docs. 74, 113) The answers to these interrogatories are

privileged and not discoverable. 

//

//

//

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery filed on May 11,

2020 is DENIED. (Doc. 156) 

DATED this 24th day of August, 2020.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 210 Filed 08/24/20 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 210 Filed 08/24/20 Page 5 of 5