Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JAVIER TORRES, ALMA SANTIAGO

and LIA RIVADENEYRA, on behalf of

themselves and others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

TERRY GODDARD, Attorney General of

the State of Arizona, in his individual and

official capacities, and CAMERON

(“KIP”) HOLMES, in his individual

capacity,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2482-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class (Doc. 79) and Memorandum

in Support of Class Certification (Doc. 80), Defendants’ Response and Objection to

Motion for Class Certification and Request for Hearing (Doc. 92), and Plaintiffs’ Reply

Memorandum in Support of Class Certification (Doc. 108). 

Defendants have requested a hearing to “take evidence from a limited number of

relevant law enforcement officials concerning the facts supporting a belief that seized

transactions were involved in criminal activity.” (Resp. at 17). Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23 grants courts wide discretion to decide whether a class should be certified. 

In making the certification decision, the court may permit discovery, limit discovery to

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 148 Filed 11/06/08 Page 1 of 2
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 -

issues pertinent to class certification, and make appropriate orders to control the course of

proceedings. F.R.C.P. 23(d). The decision whether to grant discovery prior to class

certification lies within the trial court’s discretion. Kamm v. CA City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d

205, 209 (9th Cir. 1975). In exercising this discretion, the trial court is to consider “its

need, the time required, and the probability of discovery resolving any factual issue

necessary for the determination [whether to certify the class].” Id. at 210.

In its Response and Objection to Motion for Class Certification and Request for

Hearing, Defendants provide no arguments or case law as to how the law enforcement

officials’ testimony relates to the class certification requirements of Rule 23, namely

typicality, commonality, and adequacy of representation. The Court will allow

Defendants to provide the Court with additional briefing regarding the relevancy of the

evidence from the law enforcement officials as it relates to the prerequsities for class

certification in Rule 23. Once the Court has reviewed any submission, the Court will

determine whether a class certification hearing is appropriate. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants have until Friday, November 21,

2008 to submit any additional briefing to the Court regarding the relevancy of the law

enforcement officials’ testimony. 

DATED this 6th day of November, 2008.

 

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 148 Filed 11/06/08 Page 2 of 2