Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00245/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00245-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

Robert Towery, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Janice K. Brewer, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-00245-PHX-NVW

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

DISCOVERY AND PRESERVATION

OF EVIDENCE

Less than 24 hours before the scheduled May 16 execution of Samuel Lopez,

Plaintiffs (excluding Lopez) filed a motion asking this Court to order the Arizona

Department of Corrections (“ADC”) to allow Plaintiffs’ attorneys to witness the

intravenous (“IV”) procedure during Lopez’s execution. (Doc. 69.) Subsequently, the

Arizona Supreme Court vacated Lopez’s May 16 warrant and issued a new warrant of

execution for June 27. The Court has considered the motion, Defendants’ response,

Plaintiffs’ reply, and the brief of amicus curiae First Amendment Coalition of Arizona,

Inc. The motion will be denied for the reasons that follow.

DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, it must be noted the instant motion is not timely. 

Plaintiffs initiated this action on February 6, 2012, and filed a second amended complaint

on April 19, following the executions of Robert Moormann and Robert Towery. 

Nonetheless, the motion was not filed until the day before Lopez’s scheduled May 16

execution, despite Plaintiffs citing difficulties with IV placement during Towery’s

Case 2:12-cv-00245-NVW Document 81 Filed 05/30/12 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 -

execution as additional grounds of support in their amended complaint. The fortuity of

Lopez’s execution being postponed until June 27 has provided the Court some additional

time to consider the issues raised herein, but not much. Responsive briefing just

concluded on May 29. Accordingly, this order has been expedited.

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or good cause,

the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, discovery requests may be limited when the

material sought “can be obtained from some other source” or “the burden or expense of

the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i), (iii). 

“Broad discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery.” Hallett v.

Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294,

1305 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

Plaintiffs assert that they could potentially discover evidence or information that

will help litigate their claims if they are permitted to witness the insertion of IV lines

during Lopez’s execution. The motion is based on “serious concerns” regarding

Towery’s execution, most notably that the IV Team spent almost a full hour placing

working primary and secondary IV lines and that Towery allegedly requested to speak

with counsel during the IV procedure. Defendants counter that Plaintiffs have access to

discovery to pursue their claims that does not necessitate the presence of counsel during

an execution. Plaintiffs disagree, asserting that ADC’s execution logs are insufficient to

demonstrate whether the prisoner suffered pain and that this information is necessary to

resolve the claims raised in this lawsuit.

In its order denying Lopez’s motion for preliminary injunction, the Court rejected

Lopez’s claim that his right of access to counsel and the courts would be violated if

counsel did not witness the IV-placement procedure. In doing so, the Court observed that

repeated attempts to place an IV line do not raise a per se claim of cruel and unusual

punishment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Lopez v. Brewer, No. 12-16084, 2012 WL

1693926, at *8 (May 15, 2012) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying request to have

Case 2:12-cv-00245-NVW Document 81 Filed 05/30/12 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 -

counsel observe IV-placement procedure). Plaintiffs assert that this finding has no

bearing on the present issue because they are not arguing that repeated attempts are per se

unconstitutional. (Doc. 80 at 5 n.6.) However, Plaintiffs further assert that “there is some

point at which a protracted or sloppy IV insertion exceeds constitutional safeguards” and

therefore they are entitled to the requested discovery. (Id. at 5.) 

To establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and

unusual punishment, a prisoner must demonstrate there is a “substantial risk of serious

harm” that is sure or very likely to cause serious pain and needless suffering. Baze v.

Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 50 (2008). “Simply because an execution method may result in pain,

either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort

of ‘objectively intolerable risk of harm’ that qualifies as cruel and unusual.” Id. As

explained in the order denying injunctive relief to Lopez, repeated punctures in IVplacement attempts are not uncommon, either during executions or therapeutic medicine,

and do not result in the type of pain prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Thus, even

were Lopez to experience some level of pain during placement of the primary and

secondary IV lines, this would be insufficient to establish a risk of cruel and unusual

punishment to Plaintiffs. 

Amicus curiae argue that Plaintiffs’ discovery motion must be granted to vindicate

the First Amendment right of the public and press to view executions from the moment

the condemned is escorted into the execution chamber. However, the rules of discovery

do not substitute for substantive rights, and Plaintiffs have not asserted a violation of the

First Amendment in their complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for

Discovery and Preservation of Evidence (Doc. 69) is DENIED.

DATED this 30th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00245-NVW Document 81 Filed 05/30/12 Page 3 of 3