Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290-17/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 for sanctions filed on August 31,

2020. (Doc. 215) The defendants filed a response on September 14, 2020. (Doc. 224) The

plaintiffs did not file a reply.

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. 37(b)(2)(A) that

the court impose sanctions against the defendants and counsel for failing to comply with this

court’s prior discovery order, Doc. 198. (Doc. 215) They move specifically that this court

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 252 Filed 12/02/20 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 -

find the defendants in contempt of court, order immediate delivery of the withheld

documents, and award costs and reasonable attorney fees. (Doc. 215, p. 4) 

Fed.R.Civ.P 37(b)(2)(A) provides that 

If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery . . . the court

where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include

the following:

***

(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order

to submit to a physical or mental examination.

Instead of or in addition to other remedial orders, “the court must order the disobedient party,

the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s

fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C). 

Discussion

Earlier in the case, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of documents

that had been seized from their offices by the defendants on June 14, 2017. (Doc. 133) This

court granted the motion on July 9, 2020. (Doc. 198) The defendants subsequently produced

10,664 documents in accordance with this court’s order. (Doc. 224, p. 2) 

The defendants did not release seven documents, however, because they discovered

that one of the court’s prior orders held that those documents were subject to the Law

Enforcement Investigatory Privilege. (Doc. 224, p. 2) The seven documents also have been

deemed privileged by a prior order of the Arizona Superior Court in a separate proceeding.

(Doc. 224, p. 2) 

When the court considered the plaintiffs’ earlier motion to compel, the defendants

were unaware of this privilege issue. (Doc. 224, p. 4) The issue was not presented by either

party or considered by this court. The defendants only discovered the issue when they were

preparing to comply with this court’s order to disclose the documents. The defendants

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 252 Filed 12/02/20 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 -

subsequently filed a notice on August 7, 2020 explaining why these seven documents were

being withheld. (Doc. 205)

On August 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed the pending motion that the court sanction the

defendants and counsel for failure to disclose the seven documents. (Doc. 215) They do not

address in their motion the privilege issue raised in the defendants’ notice. Id. In their

response brief, the defendants argue in accordance with their notice that the seven documents

need not be disclosed because a prior court order held that they fell within the Law

Enforcement Investigatory Privilege. (Doc. 224) The plaintiffs did not file a reply

addressing the defendants’ privilege argument.

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions and costs and attorney fees

filed on August 31, 2020 is DENIED. (Doc. 215) In accordance with the law-of-the-case

doctrine, the defendants reasonably withheld from production those documents that this court

previously deemed privileged. See Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035,

1042 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The law-of-the-case doctrine generally provides that when a court

decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in

subsequent stages in the same case.”) (punctuation modified).

DATED this 1st day of December, 2020.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 252 Filed 12/02/20 Page 3 of 3