Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02193/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02193-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

- 1 -

wo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin A Osborn,

Plaintiff

-vsIvan Bartos, et al.,

Defendants

CV-08-2193-PHX-ROS (JRI)

ORDER

Under consideration is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, filed June 3, 2010

(Doc. 161). Plaintiff seeks an order compelling responses to a variety of discovery, alleging

either that Defendants’ objections to the requests were waived by failing to timely respond,

the objections were baseless, or the responses inadequate. 

Defendants have responded (Doc. 183) arguing that the objections were not waived

by late responses, or that the lateness should be excused, or that the Court should sua sponte

limit the discovery. Defendants also argue the merits of their various objections.

Plaintiff replies (Doc. 186) that the Defendants miscalculate which responses were

delinquent, and that the objections are without merit.

1. BACKGROUND

Nature of Case - Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Doc. 4) asserted eight counts, and

on screening Counts 5 and 6 were dismissed. (Order 12/5/08, Doc. 9.) Plaintiff filed a

Motion to Amend (Doc. 38), seeking to file his First Amended Complaint, which reasserted

the surviving counts, reworked the dismissed counts, and added four new counts. The

motion to amend was granted. (See Order 6/22/09, Doc. 67.)

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed July 2, 2009, asserts twelve claims:

(1) Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendant Ramos

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 38
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 -

refused to recommend Plaintiff for protective segregation status; 

(2) Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendant Palossari

refused to recommend Plaintiff for protective segregation status;

(3) Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendant Haley

denied Plaintiff’s request for protective segregation status; 

(4) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendant Bartos

denied Plaintiff’s appeal of the denial of protective segregation status; 

(5) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated through deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s safety as a result of ADOC officers telling other

inmates that Plaintiff was an undercover FBI agent tasked to watch an inmate

with prison gang and mafia ties, a sex offender, a rapist, a child molester, a

child killer, etc. 

(6) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated through deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s safety, when ADOC officers Marten and Kohl

identified Plaintiff as a protective custody inmate, confidential informant,

undercover police officer, or the cause of various searches and yard closures.

(7) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated when, over a period of

three months, Defendants Does refused to provided him with medical

treatment for staph infection, despite Plaintiff's numerous requests; and 

(8) Defendants Markley and Schriro formed a policy or custom of routinely

denying requests for protective segregation status without regard to the risks

to individual inmates.

(9) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated through deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s need for basic human necessities when Defendant

Kauffman and other unknown defendants denied Plaintiff warmth, laundry ,

recreation, showers, lighting, etc. 

(10) Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were denied because the conduct

complained of in Counts I through IX was motivated by a desire to retaliate

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 2 of 38
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

 Defendants nonetheless contend that “[r]esponses have been served to all discovery

requests” (id. at 10). No evidence of service of responses to interrogatories to Defendan

Palossari has been provided. Defendants reference their Paragraph 15 for the proposition that

various responses are only “arguably late” (id. at 11), but the referenced paragraph simply

discusses Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the complaint (id. at 5).

- 3 -

against Plaintiff for making complaints.

(11) The actions complained of in Counts 1 through 10 constitute a denial of

substantive due process.

(12) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were violated because the actions

complained of in Counts 1 through 10 were conducted with the purpose of

causing him harm.

Answers have been filed by Defendants Bartos, Ramos, Palossari, Haley, Markley,

Schriro, Marten, Cole (“Kohl”), Kaufman, and Cardenas.

Discovery Requests & Disputes - Plaintiff has propounded a Request for Production

on defendants generally, and a series of discovery on Defendants Ramos, Bartos, Palossari,

Markley, Kaufman and Cardenas, including Requests for Production, Non-uniform

Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission.

Plaintiff provided notice of disputes among the parties that had not been resolved after

consultation, and the parties conducted a telephonic conference with the Court about the

disputed discovery on April 23, 2010. (M.E. 4/23/10, Doc. 144.) As a result of that

conference, Defendants were given a deadline to provide various proposed supplements, and

Plaintiff was given permission thereafter to file his motion to compel.

Delinquent Responses - Plaintiff asserts that a series of responses were served after

the deadline, and thus any objections are waived. Defendants concede that the responses to

eight sets of discovery were served late, and that at least four have had no response at all.1

(Response, Doc. 183 at 6.) 

Timely responses are critical to preservation of a party’s objections to interrogatories

and requests for admissions. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2) provides that a

“responding party must serve its answer and objections within 30 days after being served

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 3 of 38
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 -

with the interrogatories.” Rule 33(b)(4) specifically provides that any ground for objection

“not stated in a timely objection is waived, unless the court, for good cause, excuses the

failure.” Rule 36(a)(3) provides that a “matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being

served, the party to whom the request is directed served on the requesting party a written

answer or objection addressed to the matter.” 

No waiver is provided for with regard to requests for production. Rather, Rule

34(b)(2)(A) simply requires a response, including objections, be served “within 30 days after

being served.” 

Defendants argue that only two responses were late. The record reflects a vastly

different story.

1st RFP - Plaintiff’s first Request for Production was served by mail on April 3, 2009.

(Not. Serv. 4/5/09, Doc. 47.) Under Rules 34(b)(2) and 6(d), Defendants had a total of 33

days to respond, making their response due May 6, 2009. Defendants’ response was served

May 11, 2009. (Not.Serv. Doc. 59) Thus, Defendants’ response was some five days

delinquent.

Ramos RFA - Plaintiff’s first Request for Admissions on Defendant Ramos was

served by mail on April 27, 2009. (Not. Serv. 4/30/09, Doc. 55.) Under Rules 36(a)(3) and

6(d), Defendants had 30 plus an additional 3 days to serve responses, making them due by

June 1, 2009. Defendants did not serve their responses until June 2, 2009. (Not.Serv. 6/8/9,

Doc. 64.) Thus, Defendants’ response was one day delinquent.

Ramos NUIs - Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories on Defendant Ramos was served

by mail on May 5, 2009. (Not. Serv. 5/07/09, Doc. 57.) Under Rules 33(b)(2), 33(b)(4), and

6(d), Defendants had 30 plus an additional 3 days to serve responses, making them due by

June 8, 2009. Defendants served their responses on June 4, 2009. (Not. Serv. 6/8/9, Doc.

64.) Thus, Defendants’ response was timely.

Bartos RFP, NUI, RFA - Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Interrogatories, and

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 4 of 38
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

 The Notice of Service filed by Plaintiff reflects service on June 18, 2009. (Not.

Serv. 6/23/09, Doc. 69.) The Court relies upon the more liberal date agreed upon by the

parties.

3

 The Notice of Service filed by Plaintiff reflects service on August 17, 2009. (Not.

Serv. 8/20/09, Doc. 86.) The Court relies upon the more liberal date agreed upon by the

parties.

4

 No notice of service of these responses has been filed.

5

 The Notice of Service filed by Plaintiff reflects service on September 15, 2009.

(Not. Serv. 9/18/09, Doc. 92.) The Court relies upon the more liberal date agreed upon by

the parties.

- 5 -

Request for Production on Defendant Bartos were served by mail on June 20, 2009.2

(Motion, Doc. 161 at 5; Response, Doc. 183 at 6.) Under the rules, Defendants had a total

of 33 days to respond, making their responses due July 23, 2009. According to Defendants,

their responses were not served until July 13, 2010 (RFP), August 11, 2009 (RFA), and

February 10, 2010 (NUI), respectively. (Response, Doc. 183 at 6.) Thus, Defendants’

responses were some 355, 19, and 202 days delinquent.

Palossari RFP, RFA NUI - Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Interrogatories, and

Request for Production on Defendant Palossari were served by mail on August 18, 2009.3

(Motion, Doc. 161 at 5; Response, Doc. 183 at 6.) Under the rules, Defendants had a total

of 33 days to respond, making their responses due Monday, September 21, 2009.

Defendant’s responses to the Requests for Admissions were not served until September 22,

2009 (Not.Serv. 9/28/09, Doc. 93). Defendant’s responses to Requests for Production were

not served until July 21, 2010, as attachments to the response to the motion to compel.4

(Response, Doc. 183 at Exhibit L.) Defendant has yet to respond to the Interrogatories. 

(Response, Doc. 183 at 6.) Thus, Defendants’ responses were or are all delinquent.

Markley RFP, RFA, NUI - Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Interrogatories, and

Request for Production on Defendant Markley were served by mail on September 16, 2009.5

(Motion, Doc. 161 at 5; Response, Doc. 183 at 6.) Under the rules, Defendants had a total

of 33 days to respond, making their responses due October 19, 2009. Defendant’s responses

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 5 of 38
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

6

 No notice of service of these responses has been filed.

7

 The Notice of Service filed by Plaintiff reflects service on June 18, 2009. (Not.

Serv. 6/23/09, Doc. 69.) The Court relies upon the more liberal date agreed upon by the

parties.

- 6 -

to the Requests for Admissions were served September 22, 2009 (Not.Serv. 9/28/09, Doc.

93) and were timely. His responses to Request for Production and Interrogatories were not

served until July 21, 2010, as attachments to the response to the motion to compel.6

(Response, Doc. 183 at Exhibit L.) Thus, Defendants’ responses to the Requests for

Admission were timely but responses to the balance are all delinquent.

Kaufman RFP, RFA, NUI - Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Interrogatories, and

Request for Production on Defendant Kaufman were served by mail on March 4, 2010.

(Motion, Doc. 161 at 5; Response, Doc. 183 at 6; Not. Serv. 3/9/10, Doc. 130.) Under the

rules, Defendants had a total of 33 days to respond, making their responses due April 8,

2010. According to Defendants, their responses were not served until April 12, 2010, April

12, 2010, and April 13, 2010, respectively. (Response, Doc. 183 at 6.) Thus, Defendants’

responses were some 4 or 5 days delinquent.

Cardenas RFP, NUI - Plaintiff’s Request for Production, and Interrogatories on

Defendant Cardenas were served by mail on March 14, 2010.7

 (Motion, Doc. 161 at 5;

Response, Doc. 183 at 6; Not. Serv. 3/16/10, Doc. 132.) Under the rules, Defendants had a

total of 33 days to respond, making their responses due April 16, 2010. According to

Defendants, their responses were served April 12, 2010. (Response, Doc. 183 at 6.) Thus,

Defendants’ responses were timely.

Summary - Thus, with the exception of the Interrogatories to Ramos, the Requests for

Admissions to Markley, and the discovery to Cardenas, Defendants’ responses to all other

of these discovery requests were delinquent. Thus, under the rules, any objections asserted

in the delinquent responses to interrogatories and requests for admission were waived,

including those in the Requests for Admission to Defendants Ramos, Bartos, Palossari, and

Kauffman, and the Interrogatories to Defendants Bartos, Palossari, Markley, and Kaufman.

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 6 of 38
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

8

 Defendants argue that the Court should apply the “excusable neglect” standard of

Rule 6(b)(1)(B) citing Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Inlet Fisheries, Inc., 232 F.R.D.

609, 610-611 (D. Alaska 2005) (applying “excusable neglect” to avoid waivers on

interrogatories and requests for production). However, that decision proffered no

explanation for application of the more stringent standard, rather than good cause, as

specified in Rule 33(b)(4), and thus this Court does not find it persuasive on the point.

- 7 -

In addition, responses to the Requests for Production to Defendants generally and to

Defendants Bartos, Palossari, Markley and Kaufmann were or are delinquent.

2. WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS BY DELINQUENT RESPONSES

Defendants argue that the matter is moot because the responses were filed prior to the

motion to compel. While the service of responses in relation to a motion to compel is

relevant to an award of expenses, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5), it does not automatically moot

a motion to compel, especially one based upon a failure to provide timely objections. If

service of responses prior to a motion to compel were all that was required to avoid a waiver,

then the deadlines in Rules 33, 34, and 36 would be all but meaningless. 

Delinquent Responses to Interrogatories - Responses to Interrogatories to

Defendants Bartos, Palossari, Markley, and Kaufman were delinquent. Rule 33(b)(4)

authorizes the Court to excuse a delinquent objection to interrogatories “for good cause.”8

As good cause for the delinquencies, Defendants assert a number of circumstances

concerning the discovery requests in this case.

 Defendants argue that the Court should simply overlook the delinquencies because

Plaintiff has served 22 separate discovery requests. Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff

has exceeded the discovery limits. (Indeed, any such objection would be delinquent and

waived.) This is admittedly an expansive lawsuit, as compared to other prisoner civil rights

suits, in terms of counts, defendants and discovery requests. But certainly not beyond the

capabilities of experienced litigators like defense counsel. Moreover, Defendants had

available to them timely motions to extend if additional time was needed in light of the

number of requests. Indeed, the Court has granted Defendants at least fourteen separate

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 7 of 38
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

- 8 -

extensions in this case. (See Motions, Doc. 12, 26, 33, 41, 101, 105, 106, 116, 147, 153, 154,

163, 176, and 177; and Orders, Doc. 18, 35, 44, 104, 108, 121, 150,156, 164, and 182.)

While the Court might be tempted to overlook an inadvertent delinquency in light of the

number of requests, Defendants have not demonstrated inadvertence, but rather a persistent

disregard of the deadlines for discovery responses.

Defendants reference the date the discovery requests were actually received, and

comment that counsel would not personally receive them until up to a day later. The Rules

plainly and consistently provide that it is the service date, not the receipt date, which

controls. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A), 36(a)(3). 

Defendants are automatically entitled to an additional three days after service by mail.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Thus, absent some extraordinary delay in receipt, Defendants are not

entitled to count time from the receipt date, but from the service date. The largest discrepancy

reported by Defendants relates to requests served on Defendant Kauffman on March 4, 2010,

and not received until March 9, 2010, a lag of five days, including an intervening weekend.

(Response, Doc. 183 at 6.) That short of a delay offers no excuse for failing to serve a timely

response.

Defendants also argue that the dates provided by Plaintiff should not be relied upon

because there is an “uncertain lag between the time a request is handed to a prison official

and when it is mailed.” (Response, Doc. 183 at 11, n. 5.) The Ninth Circuit long ago

addressed this concern in the favor of utilizing the date the prisoner delivered the documents

to prison officials. “[A]n incarcerated pro se litigant completes ‘service’ under Fed.R.Civ.P.

5(b) upon submission to prison authorities for forwarding to the party to be served.” Faile

v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985, 988 (9th Cir. 1993) disapproved of on other grounds by

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 1999).

Finally, Defendants argue that an intervening amendment of Plaintiff’s complaint

rendered any pre-existing discovery requests moot, citing an order in Frost v. Schriro, CIV08-1599-PHX-PGR(MHB). In that case, however, the discovery was not “applicable to his

First Amended Complaint” but instead “specifically related to the original complaint.” Here,

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 8 of 38
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

- 9 -

however, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint did not substitute unrelated claims for his

original claims, but added additional claims (including some previously dismissed on

screening). (See Order 6/22/09, Doc. 67.) Defendants point to no authority for the

proposition that the filing of an amended pleading automatically vacates outstanding

discovery requests. If Defendants were truly confused whether the pre-amendment discovery

requests were terminated by the amendment, they could have timely sought clarification from

Plaintiff and/or the Court.

In sum, Defendants offer, at best, carelessness, and at worst impudence, in failing to

timely respond. They offer nothing not wholly within their control as justification for their

delay. 

The Court does not find good cause to excuse the delinquent responses to

interrogatories.

Delinquent Responses to Requests for Admissions - Defendants were delinquent

in serving responses to Requests for Admission to Defendants Ramos, Bartos, Palossari, and

Kauffman. The Ninth Circuit has long recognized the authority of the District Court to

permit late responses to requests for admissions. See French v. U.S., 416 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.

1968). Rule 36(b) expressly authorizes the court to "permit withdrawal or amendment" of

an admission (prior to entry of a final pretrial order)"if it would promote the presentation of

the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting

party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits.” 

The Ninth Circuit has adopted a two part standard for applying this rule. “The rule

permits the district court to exercise its discretion to grant relief from an admission made

under Rule 36(a) only when (1) ‘the presentation of the merits of the action will be

subserved,’ and (2) the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that

withdrawal or amendment will prejudice that party in maintaining the action or defense on

the merits.” Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).

“The first half of the test in Rule 36(b) is satisfied when upholding the admissions

would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.” Hadley v. United

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 9 of 38
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

- 10 -

States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995). For example, in Conlon, the plaintiff had failed

to respond to requests for admissions and thereby admitted his damages were not caused by

wrongfuly acts of the defendant. Thus, “the deemed admissions eliminated any need for a

presentation on the merits” and therefore satisfied the first prong of the Rule 36(b) test.

Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622. 

Under the second half of the Rule 36(b) test, “[t]he party relying on the deemed

admission has the burden of proving prejudice.” Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622. “The prejudice

contemplated by Rule 36(b) is ‘not simply that the party who obtained the admission will

now have to convince the factfinder of its truth. Rather, it relates to the difficulty a party may

face in proving its case, e.g., caused by the unavailability of key witnesses, because of the

sudden need to obtain evidence’ with respect to the questions previously deemed admitted.

Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348 (citations omitted). 

Defendants do not assert that “the admissions would practically eliminate any

presentation of the merits of the case." Hadley, 45 F.3d at 1348.

Rather, Defendants complain that the requests for admissions to Palossari are

“irrelevant to any of his claims.” (Response, Doc. 183 at 17.) Assuming Defendants are

correct, then the admissions would not affect the presentation of the merits of the case.

With respect to the requests to Defendant Kaufman, Defendants asserted that although

he objected to each of these admission requests, he also denied or admitted each of them.

(Response, Doc. 183 at 18.) Although Plaintiff continues to complain of their untimeliness,

Plaintiff acknowledges he has been served with revised responses from Kaufman which

either “admitted or clarified their prior denials.” (Reply, Doc. 186 at 7.) The fact that

Defendant Kaufman may have responded does not preserve his objections. Rather, “the

responding party waives any objections to the request for admission by answering the

request.” 10A Fed. Proc., L. Ed. § 26:736 at n. 10. Because the responses were untimely, the

requested admissions are deemed admitted.

Because Defendants fail to convince the Court that their deemed admissions preclude

any presentation of the merits of the case, the Court need not reach Plaintiff’s burden to

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 10 of 38
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

- 11 -

prove prejudice. The Court concludes that Defendants have waived their objections to the

delinquent requests for admissions.

Delinquent Responses to Requests for Production - The Court has concluded that

the Requests for Production to Defendants generally and to Defendants Bartos, Palossari,

Markley and Kaufmann were or are delinquent

As noted above, Rule 34 does not provide a procedure or standard for addressing

delinquent responses to requests for production.. With such requests, the burden is on the

requesting part to pursue a motion to compel under Rul 37(a)(3)(B)(iv) and/or a motion for

sanctions Rule 37(d)(1)(A), which Plaintiff has now done. However, objections to the

requests do not justify a failure to respond, unless the responding party has filed a motion for

protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(2). 

Defendants argue that the Court should apply the “excusable neglect” standard of Rule

6(b)(1)(B) citing Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Inlet Fisheries, Inc., 232 F.R.D. 609,

610-611 (D. Alaska 2005) (applying “excusable neglect” to avoid waivers on interrogatories

and requests for production). Alternatively, Rule 6(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

generally governs motions to extend made after the expiration of the allowed time. In such

instances, the court may permit a delinquent filing or action upon a showing that the failure

to act was the result of "excusable neglect." The Court will adopt Defendants’ approach and

apply an excusable neglect standard to determine whether Defendants should be permitted

to belatedly assert objections to the request for production.

In Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, the Court

worked to define the concept of "excusable neglect" in the context of a delinquent

bankruptcy claim, but noted the common usage of this term throughout federal procedural

rules in relation to deadlines. 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). The Court noted that "neglect"

necessarily encompasses situations involving inadvertence, and "encompasses both simple,

faultless omissions to act and, more commonly, omissions caused by carelessness." Id. at

388. Thus, the Court found that the ameliorative part of the standard lays in the word

"excusable." Id.

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 11 of 38
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

- 12 -

 Because Congress has provided no other guideposts for determining

what sorts of neglect will be considered “excusable,” we conclude that

the determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all

relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission. These include,

as the Court of Appeals found, the danger of prejudice to the [other

party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial

proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within

the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in

good faith. 

Id. at 395. The district court has discretion in determining the weight to be given to the

various factors considered in making this equitable determination. Mendez v. Knowles, 556

F.3d 757, 765 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Prejudice - Here, Defendants argue there is no prejudice to Plaintiff because all that

is pending is their motion for summary judgment and they will stipulate to extensions.

However, Defendants ignore the substantial effort required by Plaintiff to obtain responses,

the intervening expiration of discovery deadlines, and the general delay in the litigation.

Defendants argue that the discovery directed to the different defendants was often

seeking the same information, which had often already been provided. That ignores,

however, the risk that Plaintiff ran that a particular defendant would possess access to

documents, or would have had personal involvement different from another defendant. While

the parties share defense counsel, Plaintiff cannot presume that all discovery responses reflect

communal knowledge or information. 

The discovery request cutoff was set for September 21, 2009. (Order 6/22/09, Doc.

67.) After Plaintiff's amendment of his pleading, Plaintiff was given until March 19, 2010

to serve discovery requests on Defendants Marten, Kohl, Cardenas, and Kaufman. (Order

2/9/10, Doc. 121.) After discovery of the failure of the Court and U.S. Marshals Service to

effect discovery on Defendant Haley, Plaintiff was given 28 days after Defendant Haley's

appearance to serve discovery requests on Defendant Haley. (Order 5/6/10, Doc. 146.)

Thus, in the interim between the due date on Plaintiff's requests and the service of responses,

Plaintiff's deadline for discovery requests expired as to most Defendants. 

While Defendants proffer extensions to Plaintiff, the Court is not prepared to reset the

discovery and dispositive motion deadlines in this case to accommodated Defendants’ failure

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 12 of 38
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

9

 That motion was denied without prejudice because of Plaintiff's failure to pursue

informal resolution with Defendants and the Court. (See Order 10/20/2009, Doc. 97.) 

- 13 -

to make timely discovery responses.

Delay - Defendants note that the delay was often a matter of days. Indeed, with the

general Request for Production, and Defendant Kauffman's discovery responses, the delays

were 4 to 5 days. However, the responses to requests for production to Defendant Bartos

were 355 days delinquent. No responses have been served to the requests to Defendants

Palossari and Markley. 

The Court is particularly troubled that this is not a case where Defendants have been

surprised by this motion to compel. As far back as October, 2009, Plaintiff had alerted

Defendants of their delinquencies and failures to respond by filing his original Motion to

Compel (Doc. 94 & 95).9

 Despite that notice, Defendants continued to be delinquent in their

responses, and to fail to respond to such requests as the Palossari and Markley requests.

Reason for the delay - As discussed above in regard to the “good cause” for the

delinquent responses to interrogatories, Defendants have failed to proffer any acceptable

excuse for their delays. 

Good Faith - Defendants contend that they have been acting in good faith, responding

to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Plaintiff counters that their “responses” have consisted of

little more than a string of objections and few pages of documents.

With regard to the short delays of 4 or 5 days, the Court is inclined to find good faith.

Delays that have run into weeks or months, or have simply been a complete failure to

respond, even after being advised by the Court in a discovery conference that they were

delinquent and the Court was evaluating Plaintiff's waiver clams (M.E. 4/23/10, Doc. 144),

shows at least an absence of good faith.

Weighting - The delay has ranged from the inconsequential to the incredible. The

impact on the proceeding, however, has been substantial, leaving Plaintiff and the Court to

deal with a protracted discovery dispute, and delays in dispositive motion proceedings. This

weighs against Defendants, from minimally to substantially. The prejudice to Plaintiff

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 13 of 38
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

- 14 -

beyond the simple delay will likely not be known until the proceeding is concluded. This is

an equilibrious factor. The reasons for the delays range from negligence to callousness and

weigh in such a range against Defendants. The faith of defendants ranges from presumably

good to a complete disregard of their duties in the litigation.

In sum, where the delays have been five days or less, the Court finds excusable

neglect, and consequently good cause. As to all other delays, the Court finds an absence of

excusable neglect. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Defendants have not shown

excusable neglect to permit them to belatedly serve objections to the requests for production

on Defendants Bartos, Palossari and Markley. 

Limits on Discovery - Defendants attempt an end run around their failure to make

timely objections by arguing that even if they have waived objections, the Court should limit

the discovery because Plaintiff’s requests “far exceed the permissible bounds of discovery.”

(Response, Doc, 183 at 13.) Without identifying specific requests, Defendants argue that the

objections to Plaintiff’s requests “involve prison security, relevancy, and wildly overbroad

and burdensome requests.”

Under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26(b)(2)(C) the court, on its own initiative after

reasonable notice or pursuant to a motion under Rule 26(c), may limit

the discovery sought if it determines that it is unreasonably cumulative

or duplicative or the burden and expenses of the discovery outweighs

its likely benefit taking into account the needs of the case, the amount

in controversy, the parties resources, the importance of the issues at

stake in the litigation and the importance of the proposed discovery in

resolving the issues. Even where the court deems the party's discovery

objections to have been waived, it has the discretion to decline to

compel production where the request far exceeds the bounds of fair

discovery.

Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd. v. Mayah Collections, Inc., 2007 WL 1726558 (D. Nev. June

11, 2007). The Court will exercise that discretion as to some of Plaintiff’s requests, as

discussed hereinafter.

In doing so, the Court looks only to the objections urged in the Memorandum in

Defendants’ Response (Doc. 183). The Court notes that Defendants include in their

Response, as Exhibit L, a table of all of the objections they posed to Plaintiff’s requests.

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 14 of 38
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

- 15 -

Defendants do not reurge those objections, and reference the Exhibit only once as evidence

that “the objections interposed primarily involve prison security, relevancy, and wildly over

broad and burdensome requests.” (Response, Doc. 183 at 13-14.) Defendants now argue

only limited objections. (See id. at 14-19.) The Court will address only those objections

specifically argued in Defendants’ Memorandum..

3. SPECIFIC DISPUTED REQUESTS

At present, Plaintiff continues to seek an order compelling responses to the following

specific discovery requests, relying upon both his waiver argument and on the invalidity of

objections asserted or deficiencies in responses provided. (See Motion, Doc. 161 at 7, and

Exhibit 1.) 

Requests for Admissions - Plaintiff requests that any delinquent request for

admission be deemed admitted. As discussed above, the Court has determined that responses

to Requests for Admission to Defendants Ramos, Bartos, Palossari, and Kaufman were

delinquent, and relief from the provisions of Rule 36(a)(3) is not justified. 

Defendants proffer no compelling justification for the Court to sua sponte to limit

Plaintiff’s requests for admissions under Rule 26(b)(2)(C). They argue that the disputed

Requests for Admissions to Palossari are irrelevant. (Response, Doc. 183 at 17.) Assuming

so, then there is no harm to Defendant from the admissions. Defendants argue that

Defendant Kaufman answered his Requests for Admissions, and the Court cannot compel a

different answer. (Id. at 18.) As discussed above, Defendant’s answers were delinquent, and

those delinquent answers do not serve to evade the effect of the deemed admissions.

Accordingly, the requests for admission to Defendants Ramos, Bartos, Palossari, and

Kaufman are deemed admitted.

Interrogatories - Plaintiff requests that all delinquent objections to his interrogatories

be deemed waived. Responses to Interrogatories to Defendants Bartos, Palossari, Markley,

and Kaufman were delinquent, and the Court finds no basis to relieve Defendants of their

waiver of objections. Plaintiff lists specific complaints only about interrogatories to

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 15 of 38
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

- 16 -

Defendants Ramos, Bartos, and Kauffman. Given the fact that the responses by Defendant

Markley were served with Defendants’ Response to the motion to compel, and no responses

by Defendant Palossari have been served, the omission of specific concerns about these

responses is understandable. Of all the interrogatories, Defendants address specific

objections only as to Defendant Bartos and Ramos. Accordingly, Defendants will be ordered

to answer any interrogatories to Defendants Palossari, and Markely to which objections

were asserted. And, Defendant Kaufman will be ordered to respond to Interrogatory number

4, the only interrogatory addressed by Plaintiff. (See Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 25.)

Defendants argue the Court should sua sponte limit the interrogatories with untimely

responses under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), despite any waiver. 

Having sua sponte reviewed the interrogatories to Defendant Markely, the Court will

make a single exception concerning Interrogatory 1 to Defendant Markley, which seeks a

legal service address for all Defendants. The Court finds that the security risks entailed in

providing what may be residential addresses for ADOC employees, in the absence of any

specific justification from Plaintiff, takes this request beyond the bounds of “fair discovery.”

Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd., 2007 WL 1726558. Defendants will, however, be required

to provide current work addresses for service on such Defendants, and where only residential

addresses are available to so designate, to permit Plaintiff to seek an order for the provision

of such addresses under seal at such time as Plaintiff can demonstrate need. 

Defendants failure to provide responses on the interrogatories to Defendant Palossari

preclude the Court from making a similar review as to Defendant Palossari.

The only delinquent interrogatory responses addressed by Defendants are those to

Defendant Bartos, including interrogatories 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13 . (Response, Doc. 183 at

17.) 

In Interrogatory 6, Plaintiff seeks information on any recent lawsuit in which any

named Defendant was involved related to ADOC. (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 13.)

Defendants contend that this is “not in [Defendant Bartos’] knowledge and is overly broad

– why should he have or [sic] produce information about lawsuits against other Defendants.”

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 16 of 38
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

- 17 -

(Response, Doc. 183 at 17.) Plaintiff replies that this requests fits within the parties’

agreement to permit responses on behalf of all defendants by service on their common

defense counsel. (Reply, Doc. 186 at 6.) 

The Court finds the latter argument unpersuasive. The request is addressed solely to

Defendant Bartos. The agreement described by Plaintiff related solely to requests

specifically served on the Defendants in general. 

However, Defendant Bartos is identified by Plaintiff as the Northern Regional

Operations Director for ADOC. (First Amended Complaint, Doc. 74 at 3.) As such, there

is no reason to presume that Defendant Bartos does not have available to him the requested

information. Defendants do not argue he does not.

Nor is the fact that Defendant may not have the information “in his head” sufficient.

“The answering party cannot limit his answers to matters within his own knowledge and

ignore information immediately available to him or under his control.” Essex Builders Group,

Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 230 F.R.D. 682, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2005). “As a general rule a party

in answering interrogatories must furnish information that is available to it and that can be

given without undue labor and expense.” 8B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2174 (3d ed.). 

Defendants do not explain why the request is overly broad. Requests for such

information are common in civil lawsuits, and the Court discerns no reason to restrict the

request.

Defendant Bartos will be ordered to answer Interrogatory 6.

In Interrogatory 7, Plaintiff seeks information about pending lawsuits against ADOC

or its officers concerning the protective segregation program or claims of inadequate medical

care. (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 14.) Defendants contend this request is “overly broad

an irrelevant – they have no relevance to Plaintiff’s particular issues.” To the contrary, the

requests seem directed to the nature of Plaintiff’s Complaint. On the presumption that some

investigation will be required by Defendant to respond, and the Court might require more

from Plaintiff to counter a timely objection, Defendant’s have failed to show that “the request

far exceeds the bounds of fair discovery.” Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd., 2007 WL

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 17 of 38
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

- 18 -

1726558. 

Defendant Bartos will be ordered to answer Interrogatory 7.

In Interrogatory 10, Plaintiff seeks contact information for parole or community

supervision officers assigned to 3 specific inmates and are most easily located through the

referenced officers. (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 14-15.) In Interrogatory 11, Plaintiff

seeks the “full name and A.D.O.C. number” of a list of ten inmates, some of whom are

identified only by their first names and/or cell number. (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 15.)

Plaintiff argues that the referenced inmates are either witnesses to or issuers of threats against

Plaintiff.

 Defendants argue these requests seeks confidential inmate records and is irrelevant

because Plaintiff cannot re-argue the protective segregation decision. (Response, Doc, 183

at 17.) Defendants do not explain why the identity of a parole officer or an inmate and his

ADOC number is confidential, nor do they suggest that they are privileged. 

 Defendants proffer no authority for the proposition that Plaintiff cannot attack the

protective segregation decision. Moreover, even if the decision itself cannot be reviewed,

that does not render potential witnesses as to the existence of real threats irrelevant to

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims concerning his protective segregation status.

Defendant Bartos will be ordered to answer Interrogatories 10 and 11.

In Interrogatory 13, Plaintiff seeks the “name of the ‘Key Contact Nurse’ at Lewis

Complex in February through May, 2008.”. (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 16.) Defendants

argue they “have not been able to identify a ‘key contact nurse’ and such nurse is also not

relevant to any claim.” (Response, Doc. 183 at 17.) Plaintiff argues in reply that the “key

contact nurse” is identified by ADOC policy as the nurse responsible for scheduling medical

appointments on health needs requests, and that the information is relevant to assertion that

he was not being provided appropriate medical care in retaliation for his complaints. That

claim underlies his Counts 7 (medical needs) and 10 (retaliation). 

With the clarification that Plaintiff is referring to the persons responsible for

scheduling medical appointments, Defendant Bartos will be ordered to answer Interrogatory

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 18 of 38
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

- 19 -

13. 

In summary, Defendant Bartos will be ordered to answer Interrogatories 6, 7, 10, 11

and 13.

As to the interrogatories to Defendant Ramos, Plaintiff contends the answers to

Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, and 15 are deficient. Defendants timely objected to each of

these interrogatories. Defendant now contends that the objections to Interrogatories 7, 12

and 15 should be sustained. (Response, Doc. 183 at 16-17.) 

No argument is made by Defendants in their responses as to Interrogatories 1, 2, 3,

or 4. (Id.) Accordingly, Defendant will be required to answer these interrogatories.

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory number 7 to Defendant Ramos asked Defendant to “state the

name and ADOC number of the cellmate of Inmate Brent Lee Hart on 4/8/08.” (Motion,

Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 9.) Defendants contend that “Defendant is not able to ascertain who

was this inmate’s cellmate on a particular date” and that the request is irrelevant. (Response,

Doc. 183 at 16.) 

With regard to the information’s availability, Plaintiff contends in his motion that such

information is contained within daily “count sheets.” (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 10.)

Plaintiff contends in his Reply that this information can be “provided with little effort.”

(Reply, Doc. 186 at 6.) Defendant does not establish any effort to locate the information, e.g.

by reviewing the daily count sheets, nor does Defendant suggest that such information is not

available to him. Rather, Defendant offers only the bald assertion that he can’t ascertain the

information. The Court is not convinced.

With regard to the information’s relevancy, Defendants contend that this information

only relates to “threats to open the doors and let inmates attack him” which they contend “do

not appear to be part of the Complaint.” (Response, Doc. 183 at 16.) However, in his

Motion, Plaintiff contends inter alia that this unknown inmate was a witness to actions by

corrections officers which triggered Plaintiff’s protective segregation request, and that

Plaintiff believes this inmate suffered through attacks and threats similar to those with which

officers threatened Plaintiff. (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 10.) He describes those as

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 19 of 38
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

- 20 -

“allowing general population inmates to access his cell so they might assault or kill him.”

(Id.) Given Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim based upon the denial of his protective

segregation requests and the based upon the officers’ intentional subjection of Plaintiff to

risk of assaults from other inmates, the Court finds that the information sought is “regarding

. . . the identity and location of persons who now of any discoverable matter.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(1).

Defendant Ramos will be ordered to respond to Interrogatory Number 7.

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory number 12 to Defendant Ramos asked Defendant to

“[i]dentify all documents created pursuant to any ‘break-in’ or attempted ‘break-in’ by

general population inmates into the temporary detention unit cells within Buckley Unit,

Building One, ‘D’-Pod that occurred in 2008.” (Motion, Doc. 161, Ex. 1 at 11.) Defendants

argue that these documents “are not part of Plaintiff’s claims and thus irrelevant.” (Response

Doc. 183 at 16.) Plaintiff’s Motion offers no explanation of the request’s relevancy, but

simply asserts that it “is relevant.” (Motion, Doc. 161, Ex. 1 at 11.) Plaintiff does not

address the request in his Reply. (Doc. 186 at 6.) Even after reviewing the generally argued

“theories of Plaintiff’s case” (Motion, Doc. 161 at 6), the Court finds no basis to connect this

request to Plaintiff’s claims. The objection will be sustained.

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory number 15 to Defendant Ramos asked Defendant to provide

“the historical Security Threat Group (STG) status, and the corresponding dates in any

changes to same” for a list of inmates. (Motion, Doc. 161, Ex. 1 at 12.) Plaintiff argues in

his Motion that these individuals are potential witnesses. (Id. at Exhibit 1 at 13.) Defendants

argue that this information is confidential, poses a security risk, is irrelevant, and can be

obtained from the witnesses at trial. (Response, Doc, 171 at 16-17.) In his Reply, Plaintiff

contends that “Defendants were on notice as to threats to Plaintiff from these men” because

he asserted threats from them in his protective segregation request, and that “the information

requested will prove that Defendants knew of the gang status and power that these men

held.” (Reply, Doc. 186 at 6.) 

The Court finds the information requested relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and within

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 20 of 38
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

- 21 -

the scope of discovery. 

Defendants proffer no authority for the assertion that the information is confidential,

and do not suggest that any recognized privilege applies.

However, the Court is concerned about the security risks posed by the distribution of

the requested information, particularly in light of the specificity of the information requested,

and that as a result the discovery may be unduly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

The Court is authorized to “prescribe] a discovery method other than the one selected by the

party seeking discovery” and to specify the terms for discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). To

avoid the security concerns and avoid the delay of additional discovery requests, Defendants

will be directed to either admit that the named individuals were known to the Arizona

Department of Corrections to be powerful members of prison gangs, or to show cause for

their failure to do so, and to propose alternative means to provide Plaintiff the information

he seeks while minimizing the security risks.

In summary , Defendant Ramos will be ordered to respond to Interrogatories 1, 2, 3,

4, 7 and to comply with the alternate discovery as to Interrogatory 15.

Requests for Production of Documents - Plaintiff complains of inadequate

responses to requests for production served on Defendants generally, and Defendants

Kauffman, Palossari and Markley.

As to the requests for production served on Defendants generally, Plaintiff complains

of the responses to requests 4, 6, 8, 9,11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, to which Defendants objected.

 (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 1-6.) 

Defendants contend that the requests for production served on “Defendants” are

improper, inasmuch as the rules only permit service on “a named individual party.”

(Response, Doc. 183 at 14 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)).) Moreover, Plaintiff contends that

Defendants expressly agreed to respond to these requests at the parties’ April 16, 2009

conference (20 days before responses were due) because “all defendants were represented

by the Attorney General.” (Motion, Doc. 161 at 4. See also Reply, Doc. 186 at 5.)

Defendants do not dispute that contention.

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 21 of 38
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

- 22 -

Assuming that Plaintiff’s direction of the requests to all defendants, all of whom are

represented by the same counsel, were improper, Defendants waived any such objection both

expressly and by failing to timely object. To hold otherwise would encourage parties to

simply ignore such objections of form, and lie in wait until the matter is pressed in a motion

to compel before they finally spring their objection on the proponent

With regard to Request 4, Defendants contend that they refused to produce

performance appraisals and disciplinary files of the defendants and two non-defendants,

arguing they are confidential under Arizona law and irrelevant. (Response, Doc. 183 at 14.)

Defendants cite absolutely no authority for their contentions.

In their objections served on Plaintiff, Defendants referenced Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-

221(D)-(E) for the proposition that they are without authority to produce the records, and that

Ariz.Admin.Code § R2-5-105(E) and ADOC D.O. 507.01 make personnel files confidential.

(Motion, Doc. 151, Exhibit 1 at 1.) However, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-221 has no relationship

to personnel files, but relates instead to prisoner records. The referenced portion of the

Arizona Administrative Code authorizes access to “[t]he employee or an individual who has

written authorization from the employee to review the personnel file.” Ariz. Admin. Code

§ R2-5-105(E)(1). Thus, as to the named Defendants, these documents remain in the parties’

control. Moreover, the regulations permit release to an “an official acting in response to a

court order or subpoena.” Id. at -105(E)(4). The term “official” is limited to an individual

“exercising powers and duties on behalf of the chief administrative head of a public body.”

Thus, a subpoena directed to an appropriate officer would be sufficient to overcome this

regulation. However, no such subpoena has issued.

Further, even assuming some state law, regulation or policy prohibited the voluntary

release of the requested information, that does not amount to a privilege avoiding compliance

with the discovery processes of a Federal court. It is true that Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)

specifically provides that privileged items are excluded from the scope of discoverable

matters. However, Fed.R.Evid. 501 requires that as to federal claims, federal laws of

privilege apply. Defendants cite to no federal privileges.

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 22 of 38
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

- 23 -

Thus, the only valid contention raised in the objections appears to be that, as to the

non-Defendants, the records are, under state law, outside the control of the Defendants. As

such, an order directing them to produce these records would appear futile.

Defendants also argue that the information would not be admissible to show

“incidents of the same type.” (Response, Doc. 183 at 14.) Plaintiff argued in his Motion to

Compel that this information is sought to identify other potential defendants “who were on

notice as to previous misconduct.” He also argues that it would be admissible under Federal

Rule of Evidence 404(b) (evidence of other wrongs admissible to show motive, intent, etc.)

and 406 (habit, routine practice). (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 1.) Defendants do not

respond to these arguments.

Defendants complain that Plaintiff seeks not just limited portions of the files, but “all

files.” (Response, Doc. 183 at 15.) Plaintiff’s request is limited to “performance appraisals

and disciplinary files,” although he then expands it to include a host of sources, including

incident reports, investigations, etc. (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 1.) The latter would

conceivably require a foray into a vast sea of documents. It is reasonable to assume that any

matters found to be of concern or merit would become part of some record specific to the

employee. The Court finds that beyond such repository, “the request far exceeds the bounds

of fair discovery.” Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd., 2007 WL 1726558. 

Finally, Defendants complain that allowing Plaintiff access to any piece of a personnel

file “raises grave security risks.” (Response, Doc. 183 at 15.) The Court is not insensitive

to these risks, and they are a legitimate reason to find discovery requests unduly burdensome.

However, in response to a motion to compel, defending delinquent objections, Defendants

cannot simply throw security up as some impenetrable wall. Defendants make no effort to

elucidate the concern, proffer means to permit Plaintiff access to relevant information while

redacting of particularly sensitive information, etc. Nonetheless, the Court will permit

Defendants to provide redacted copies, with unredacted copies filed under seal. Redactions

should be limited to identifying information beyond the Defendants’ name and badge

number, and to redact identifying information of other officers and inmates, with the

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 23 of 38
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

- 24 -

provision of substitute, anonymous identifiers sufficient to make the substance of the

information meaningful.

Accordingly, Defendants will be ordered to produce, from whatever personnel or

similar file specifically related to the designated officer, where such records are normally

maintained, the performance appraisals and disciplinary records in Request 4 as to the named

Defendants only, in redacted form, with unredacted copies filed under seal.

With regard to Request 6, Plaintiff seeks the signed oaths of Defendants, Sgt. Fajardo

and Deputy Warden Timmons, related to ethics, and upholding the law. (Motion, Doc. 161,

Exhibit 1 at 2.) Defendants argue the oaths are irrelevant, Plaintiff knows the language, and

that Defendants have to uphold the laws. Defendants fail to convince the Court that “the

request far exceeds the bounds of fair discovery.” Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd., 2007 WL

1726558. Plaintiff should be permitted to impeach witnesses with such oaths, should the

opportunity arise, and Defendants suggest no particular burdensomeness.

Defendants will be ordered to produce the records in Request 6.

With regard to Request 8, Plaintiff seeks “[a]ll reports, etc. generated by information

obtained from confidential informants at Lewis Complex from 1/31/08 to 5/31/08.” (Motion,

Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 2.) Plaintiff argues that this information will show that he had served

as a confidential informant, officers broadcast that information, resulting in threats against

him, and he notes that the officers to whom he provided information have denied meeting

with him. (Id. at 2-3.) 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s “entire redacted protective segregation file was

produced,” and that any confidential information reports would be in such file. Defendants

also express concern about the security risks of divulging information on such a broad array

of confidential informants, particularly in light of Plaintiff’s dangerousness. (Response, Doc.

183 at 15.) Defendants argue that the reasons for wanting PS status are irrelevant, and it is

only the “the prison’s response that is relevant.” Plaintiff counters that the entire file was not

provided, and that it was heavily redacted. (Reply, Doc. 186 at 6.) 

The Court does not find persuasive the argument that the reasons for the request is

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 24 of 38
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

- 25 -

irrelevant. Evaluating whether a response evidenced deliberate indifference requires

information about the basis for the request.

However, this request seeks production of a broad range of documents, potentially

from a vast sea of sources, all clouded by the security risks inherent in the disclosure of

information about confidential informants, a risk which is even the substance of a number

of counts in Plaintiff’s Complaint. On the other hand, the Court is cognizant of the difficulty

Plaintiff faces in attempting to craft a narrower request - - the entire process of using

confidential informants is presumably kept confidential, leaving Plaintiff to guess where the

information he seeks may be found. However, the Court is concerned that Plaintiff proffers

no reason to believe the information he seeks even exists. Nor does he suggest that

Defendants are incorrect in their assertion that any reports related to Plaintiff would be in his

protective segregation file. 

Still, the Court is concerned that the redactions adopted by Defendants may have

excluded the relevant information. Therefore, the Court will direct Defendants to file with

the Court, under seal, both the redacted and the complete and unredacted copies of Plaintiff’s

Protective Segregation file. The Court will review these and make a further order as to

whether additional production will be required. 

With regard to Request 9, Plaintiff seeks “[s]upporting document for all yard closures

and/or building searches that took place at Buckley Unit between 1/31/08 and 3/18/08.”

(Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 3.) Plaintiff seeks not only the document justifying the

searches, but the results as well. (Id.) He argues that the documents “will show the official

actions taken by ADOC in response to information provided by Plaintiff.” (Id. at 4.) 

Defendants argue that, despite their waived objections, the Court should not require

a response because documents “about yard closures are not relevant to any claims and would

be difficult to collect and produce.” (Response, Doc. 181 at 16.) Defendants do not

specifically address the searches issue. Plaintiff makes no pertinent reply.

It appears that this request is intended to corroborate Plaintiff’s claim that he was

serving as a confidential informant, and that they acted on his information, thus lending

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 25 of 38
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

- 26 -

credibility to his claims of resulting threats. Thus, the information appears relevant. 

As to the burdensomeness of the request, Defendants fail to provide any details to

suggest that compliance would be so difficult to as to make this request one which “far

exceeds the bounds of fair discovery." Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd., 2007 WL 1726558.

For example, Defendants do not suggest that the closures or searches were numerous or that

the documents are far flung. 

The Court can anticipate, however, that legitimate security concerns could arise from

the production of these documents, e.g. if an inmate other than Plaintiff were the instigator,

specific tactical plans or procedures were revealed, etc. Therefore, Defendants will be

ordered to produce the documents sought in Request 9, but may redact the records as

necessary to avoid the disclosure of the identity of specific inmates or officers other than

Plaintiff, or otherwise creating a specific threat to institutional security.. 

In his Request 11, Plaintiff seeks “[a]ll sergeants’ reports, lieutenants reports and

captains’ reports generated at Buckley Unit (Lewis Complex) between 1/31/08 and 3/18/08.”

(Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 4.) In Request 13, Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny posting log, duty

log, etc. showing the position or assignment for all officers at Buckley Unit between 1/31/09

and 3/18/08.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff offers to limit this request to Building One, and argues he

“must be able to identify the ADOC officers.” (Id.) In his Request 14, Plaintiff seeks “[a]ll

journals ‘bubble’ logs, etc. generated in Building One (C and D pods) describing the daily

activities taking place in that location between 1/31/08 and 3/18/08.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff

argues that the “broadcasting” of his informant status occurred during certain activities, (e.g.

during showers), these documents will identify the responsible officers. (Id.) In his Request

15, Plaintiff seeks the “Tower log for Buckley Unit between 1/31/09 and 3/18/08.” (Id.)

Plaintiff argues that these records will show a riot on February 18, 2008, which Plaintiff

contends resulted from “the white inmates not ‘taking care’ of plaintiff ‘when they had the

chance.’” (Id.)

Defendants contend, without explanation, that these requests are irrelevant, overly

broad and raise serious security concerns. (Response, Doc. 183 at 16.) 

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 26 of 38
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

- 27 -

Without elucidation, the Court will not presume irrelevance or security concerns

(particularly where Defendants have previously availed themselves of redactions to avoid

such concerns).

 The requests do, however, appear to be overly broad. The request for officer reports

is not limited to reports on specific issues, or by particular persons, but simply seeks a

regurgitation of what would appear to be a raft of records. Plaintiff proffers nothing to

justify such a broad ranging request. Similarly, the assignment logs request, even reduced

to a single building, appears burdensome, especially with no real justification for the request

proffered. Likewise, the daily journal requests seeks a bevy of information without

connection to particular dates or incidents. The Court is especially concerned where all of

these requests concern events to which Plaintiff was a witness, and yet Plaintiff makes no

effort to target his request. Thus, the Court must conclude that these requests “far exceed[]

the bounds of fair discovery.” Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd., 2007 WL 1726558. 

Defendants will not be ordered to respond to Request 11 Request 13, or Request 14.

As to Request 15, the central contention, e.g. the existence of the riot, can be dealt

with by an admission and alternatively an interrogatory. Accordingly, Defendants will be

directed to either admit that a riot occurred between black inmates and white inmates on

Buckley Unit on February 18, 2008, or shall serve a response to the following interrogatory:

“Identify the date of any riots or similar disturbances occurring between black inmates and

white inmates occurring on Buckley Unit between the dates of January 31, 2008 and March

18, 2008.” 

In his Request 12, Plaintiff seeks “[o]ne count sheet per day for each pod at Buckley

Unit for the period 1/31/08 through 3/18/08.” Defendants argue that “[c]ount sheets have

been produced,” but offer no details on their production. (Response, Doc. 183 at 16.)

Plaintiff counters that “not a single count sheet has been provided.” (Reply, Doc. 186 at 6.)

Giving Defendants the benefit of the Court’s doubts, no reason is proffered to not

require service of a the count sheets again.

Defendants will be ordered to (again) produce the documents in Request 12.

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 27 of 38
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

- 28 -

Plaintiff complains about Defendant Kaufman’s responses to his Requests for

Production 1 through 13, excepting only number 10. (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 18-22.)

(Although delinquent, the Court has determined hereinabove to treat the objections to these

requests as timely made.)

In Request 1, Plaintiff seeks”accountability logs” for certain dates at Buckley Unit

bearing the name of “Alfredo Cardenas.” (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 18.) In Request

2, he seeks the same information as to “Sgt. Kaelea B. Cole (names as Kohl).” (Id. at 19.)

In Request 3, he seeks ADOC documents showing the posting of Officer Cardenas. In

Request 4, he seeks the same documents for Officer Kohl. (Id.) Defendants respond that

the “[a]ll documents requested in RFPD 1-4 that have been obtained have been produced,

and will be continuously updated.” (Response, Doc. 183 at 17.) Plaintiff argues that only

minimal documents have ben provided in response (four days of accountability logs as to

Defendant Cardenas). (Reply, Doc, 186 at 7.) 

Defendants proffer no objections to these requests. Their response suggests that the

search is simply ongoing. Defendants have had over six months to respond to these requests,

and are simply producing things as they turn up.. While certainly a duty to supplement exists,

a request for production is not wish list for what may eventually turn up. 

Defendants will be ordered to produce the documents requested in Requests 1, 2, 3,

and 4.

In Request 5, Plaintiff requests any oaths taken by Defendants to uphold the law. 

(Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 20.) Defendants again argue the oaths are irrelevant,

Plaintiff knows the language, and that Defendants have to uphold the laws. (Response, Doc.

183 at 17,15.) This time, the Court does not address these arguments as waived objections,

but as properly presented objections. Nonetheless, Defendants fail to convince the Court

that the request is outside the bounds of discovery. “ Discovery is commonly allowed in

which the discovering party seeks information with which to impeach witnesses for the

opposition.” 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2015, at n.2. This is true even if the material itself

may not be admissible. Id. at text surrounding n. 8. Plaintiff should be permitted to impeach

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 28 of 38
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

- 29 -

witnesses with such oaths, should the opportunity arise, and Defendants suggest no particular

burdensomeness. Defendants will be ordered to produce the documents requested in Request

5.

In Request 6, Plaintiff references a request for production on Defendant Ramos, and

requests the same information as to Defendants Cole, Cardenas and Kaufman. ” (Motion,

Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 20.) Plaintiff subsequently attempted to clarify that he was

referencing his requests served on Defendants generally, which requested various

performance appraisals and disciplinary files. Defendants reassert the same objections made

to those requests. (Response, Doc. 183 at 17,15.) 

As with Request 4 to the Defendants generally, the Court finds the request overly

broad, in many respects outside the control of defendants, and will therefore order Defendant

Kaufman to produce, from whatever personnel or similar file specifically related to the

designated officer, where such records are normally maintained, the performance appraisals

and disciplinary records in Request 4 as to Defendant Kaufman only, in redacted form, with

unredacted copies filed under seal.

In Request 7, Plaintiff seeks “‘issue papers’ submitted to the Direct of ADOC

pursuant to Dept. Order 118 (effective 9/1/96) which relate to any aspect of the protective

segregation program, during the period 1/1/2000 to the present.” ” (Motion, Doc. 161,

Exhibit 1 at 20.) In Request 8, Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny agendas, minutes, notes], etc. prepared

for, or which memorialize all ‘executive staff meetings’ (as the term is used in Dept. Order

112 - effective 4/7/09) for the period 1/1/2006 to the present.” ” (Id. at 21.) In Request 9,

Plaintiff seeks the same information as in Request 8 “for all administrative meetings.” (Id.)

Defendants object to each of these on the basis of security and confidentiality

concerns, and as to Request 8 and 9 on the basis of relevancy. (Id. at 20-21; Response, Doc.

183 at 17.) Plaintiff argues that the information is sought to show that “the Director (and

others) were on notice regarding safety and capacity problems of the P.S. program.”

(Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 21.) 

The Court is not convinced that those records relevant to this matter would be

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 29 of 38
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

- 30 -

protected from production based on security and confidentiality concerns.

However, the only claim to which such information would conceivably relate is

Plaintiff’s Count 8 where he alleges Defendants Markley and Schriro formed a policy or

custom of routinely denying requests for protective segregation status without regard to the

risks to individual inmates. Plaintiff makes no effort to limit his request to information

concerning the issues he references, and it would appears that the issue papers, executive

staff meeting records and administrative meeting records he references would encompass a

wide range of issues wholly irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Without any guidance, the Court

is unable to limit this request in a way that would result in only relevant information being

produced, without simply leaving it to Defendants to apply their own standards. Therefore,

the Court finds these requests overly broad, and no response to requests 7, 8, or 9 will be

required.

In Requests 11, 12, and 13, Plaintiff seeks various records concerning the certification

of various prison gangs as security threat groups. Plaintiff argues these will show the

dangerousness of the prison gangs. (Motion, Doc. 161, Exhibit 1 at 21-22.) Defendants

argue that the information is irrelevant, particularly given Defendants’ concession that

security threat groups are dangerous.

The Court finds these requests overly broad. The only information directly relevant

to Plaintiff’s claims would be risks associated with such gangs with regard to confidential

informants. The Court would be shocked if any Defendant attempted to argue that prison

gangs did not pose a very real threat to confidential informants. ADOC officials and

employees routinely plead with this Court to restrict access to records concerning

confidential informants for exactly that reason. Moreover, Plaintiff makes no effort to

restrict his request to such issues, and makes no effort to assist the Court in limiting his

request. Accordingly, no further response to Requests 11, 12 or 13 will be required.

With regard to the Request for Production served on Defendants Palossari and

Markley, the Court has concluded herein above that the responses were delinquent and any

objections asserted by Defendants have been waived. Defendants make no arguments to

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 30 of 38
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

- 31 -

assert that the materials sought “far exceeds the bounds of fair discovery." Fifty-Six Hope

Rd. Music, Ltd., 2007 WL 1726558. 

Upon review, however, the Court is concerned that some of the requests raise

particular security concerns, not only as to Defendants and ADOC, but to law enforcement

in general or other inmates, or to be blatantly beyond the scope of discovery. Accordingly,

the parties will be given an opportunity to be heard as to the following requests for

production: Palossari requests 3, 4, 6, and 9; and Markley requests 2, 13, 14, and 15. 

The Court notes the objection of Defendant Palossari as to Request 8, which seeks a

summary of yard closures, stating that Defendants are not required to produce documents.

In lieu of simply disposing of this request, the Court will treat it as an interrogatory, and

direct Defendant Palossari to respond.

With regard to Request Number 1 to Defendant Markley, the request will be limited

to communications with or concerning officers Williams and Masella, and may be redacted

by Defendants to avoid specific risks to institutional security.

The Court also notes the objections asserted by Defendant Markley as to requests 8,

9, 10, 11, and 12.. These requests seek various administrative meeting records and “issue

packages.” The Court understands these requests to be limited to summary information

concerning general levels of violence and related to the administration of he protective

segregation program as a whole, and thus to exclude matters related to particular inmates or

incidents. So understood, they are significantly narrower than requests 7, 8, and 9 to

Defendant Kaufman which the Court has found to exceed the bounds of discovery.

Accordingly, the Court does not include these in the requests to which further briefing will

be permitted.

Therefore, Defendant Palossari will be required to produce the documents or other

items for inspection requested in Request 5, and to treat Request 8 as a n interrogatory and

respond thereto. Defendant Markley will be required to produce the documents requested

in Request Number 1, limited to communications with or concerning officers Williams and

Masella, and may be redacted by Defendants to avoid specific risks to institutional security.

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 31 of 38
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

- 32 -

In addition, Defendant Markely will be required to produce the documents requested in

Request numbers 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

4. ADDITIONAL DISPUTES

Counsel Signatures - Plaintiff complains that responses to interrogatories by

Defendant Ramos were not signed by counsel of record, but by “Michele Forney,” who

Plaintiff does not know to be any attorney. (Motion, Doc. 161 at 3.) Defendants do not

address this issue. Michele. Forney is a member of this Court’s bar, and was last reported

as a member of defense counsel’s firm, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. Moreover,

Local Civil Rule 83.3(b)(4) explicitly authorizes counsel in a governmental law office to

make the “occasional . . . filing of a pleading, motion or other document as associate counsel

at the request of an attorney of record” without filing a notice of association of counsel.

Without more, the Court concludes that Ms. Forney’s execution was authorized by defense

counsel, and is binding upon defense counsel Gottfried as if personally signed by him. No

action will be taken on the basis of this complaint.

Updates - Plaintiff complains that Defendants have not fulfilled their obligation to

update discovery responses. (Motion, Doc. 161 at 4.) Plaintiff does not identify any specific

failures. Therefore the Court will not address this complaint.

Verification - Plaintiff complains that Defendant Cardenas’ response to

interrogatories were served without any verification. (Motion, Doc. 161 at 4.) Defendants

do not address the issue. Defendant Cardenas will be directed to serve on Plaintiff a

verification of his previously served responses to interrogatories.

Discussions Concerning Defendant Haley - Defendants assert that Plaintiff has

refused to communicate with them concerning remaining disputes related to discovery

requests to Defendant Haley. Plaintiff denies the claim. The discovery requests to

Defendant Haley are not a subject of the instant motion to compel, and are not addressed in

this Order. 

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 32 of 38
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

- 33 -

5. AWARD OF COSTS; SANCTIONS

Plaintiff requests an award of costs and sanctions. Defendants do not respond.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) mandates the payment of a successful movant’s

“reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees,” unless the

movant failed to attempt informal resolution, the failure to respond or objections were not

substantially justified, or other circumstances makes an award unjust. Rule 37(a)(5)(C)

permits an apportionment where a motion is partially successful. The Court finds that, while

some of Defendants objections have been sustained, that on the whole Plaintiff’s motion has

been justified and Defendants’ conduct has reflected a substantial and ongoing violation of

the spirit and letter of the rules concerning discovery. The Court therefore finds that none

of the exceptions in Rule 37(a)(5)(A) apply, and that an award of all of Plaintiff’s expenses

is appropriate. 

Fortunately for Defendants, Plaintiff is unrepresented, and thus the award of costs is

not significant, being limited to only his costs of stationary, copies, postage, etc. Plaintiff has

had to engage in the filing of 225 pages and mail four separate packages to the Court and

Defendants in connection with the motion (5 copies each (Plaintiff, Court, Judge,

Defendants, Conformed) of Doc.s 161 (34 pages) and 171 (11 pages)). The Court estimates

the costs of such supplies, etc. at $77.50 ($0.30 per page plus $10 in mailing and other

suplies), and in light of the limited amount of such costs in the face of the costs of further

briefing, will make a conditional award in such amount, subject to the submission of a notice

by either party providing a different calculation.

Rule 37(d) provides for an award of sanctions where a party fails to serve responses,

objections etc., to interrogatories or requests for production. Although it is apparently not

a settled matter in this circuit, authorities suggest that Rule 37(d) only applies where there

is a complete failure to make discovery, not merely a partial or belated response. But see N.

Am. Watch Corp. v. Princess Ermine Jewels, 786 F.2d 1447, 1450 (9th Cir. 1986) (belated

compliance with order compelling discovery ineffective to avoid sanctions). 

Here, Defendants failed to provide any responses to interrogatories and requests for

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 33 of 38
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

- 34 -

production served on Defendants Palossari and Markely until after Plaintiff’s motion was

filed, some nine months after their due date. “[O]nce a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(d)

has been made, the delinquent party cannot deprive the court of the authority to impose

sanctions by then making the response to discovery requests that should have been made

earlier. 8B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2291 at n. 20(3d ed.).

While Defendants have pled oversight, Plaintiff plainly alerted Defendants to their

failure to respond to these requests in his original Motion to Compel, filed October 15, 2009

(Doc. 94 at 4 (referencing lack of response to interrogatories and requests for productions

served 8/18/09 and 9/16/09)). Any legitimate claim to oversight terminated with that filing.

While the Court ultimately denied the motion on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to attempt

informal resolution first, the Court also specifically ordered the parties to confer “about the

discovery disputes raised in Plaintiff's motion to compel.” (Order 10/20/09, Doc. 97 at 2.)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that an award of sanctions against Defendants

Markley and Palossari is appropriate. 

Rule 37(d)(3) directly references the sanctions in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(I) through (vi),

which includes such things as finding facts established, evidence precluded, pleadings

stricken, judgment entered, etc. The rule also recognizes the appropriateness of an award of

fees and costs, which would be duplicative of the expenses provided for above. 

Without copies of the interrogatories to Defendant Palossari, crafting of a complete

sanction would be impossible. Accordingly, the Court will direct the filing of such

interrogatories, and will take the nature of sanctions under advisement until they are filed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, filed

June 3, 2010 (Doc. 161) is GRANTED to the extent of the relief provided herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Ramos, Bartos, Palossari, and

Kaufman are deemed to have admitted the allegations in the Requests for Admissions

previously served upon them by Plaintiff.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kaufman shall serve on Plaintiff

responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory number 4 served on such Defendant.

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 34 of 38
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

- 35 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with the exception to Interrogatory number one

to Defendant Markley, Defendants Palossari and Markley shall serve on Plaintiff responses

to any of Plaintiffs Interrogatories to such Defendant to which such Defendant objected.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Markely shall respond to Plaintiff’s

Interrogatory Number 1 by providing current work addresses for service on such Defendants,

and where only residential addresses are available to so designate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bartos shall serve on Plaintiff

responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory numbers 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13 served on such Defendant,

with the clarification that Plaintiff is referring in Interrogatory number 13 to the persons

responsible for scheduling medical appointments.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ramos shall serve on Plaintiff

responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 served on such Defendant.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ramos shall either: (1) serve upon

Plaintiff an admission that the named individuals were known to the Arizona Department of

Corrections to be powerful members of prison gangs; or (2) show cause for their failure to

do so, and to propose alternative means to provide Plaintiff the information he seeks while

minimizing the security risks.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall serve on Plaintiff copies of the

documents requested in Plaintiff ‘s Request for Production to Defendants generally, numbers

6, 9, and 12.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a response to Plaintiff ‘s Request for

Production to Defendants generally, number 4, Defendants shall serve on Plaintiff copies of

the documents from whatever personnel or similar file specifically related to the designated

officer, where such records are normally maintained, the performance appraisals and

disciplinary records identified in Request 4 as to the named Defendants only, in redacted

form, with unredacted copies filed under seal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a response to Plaintiff ‘s Request for

Production to Defendants generally, number 8, Defendants shall file with the Court, under

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 35 of 38
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

- 36 -

seal, both the redacted and the complete and unredacted copies of Plaintiff’s Protective

Segregation file. The Court will review these and make a further order as to whether

additional production will be required. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a response to Plaintiff ‘s Request for

Production to Defendants generally, number 9, Defendants shall serve on Plaintiff copies of

the records sought in Request 9, but may redact the records as discussed herein. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a response to Plaintiff ‘s Request for

Production to Defendants generally, number 15, Defendants shall either: (1) serve on

Plaintiff an admission that a riot occurred between black inmates and white inmates on

Buckley Unit on February 18, 2008; or (2) shall serve a response to the following

interrogatory: “Identify the date of any riots or similar disturbances occurring between black

inmates and white inmates occurring on Buckley Unit between the dates of January 31, 2008

and March 18, 2008.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kaufman shall serve on Plaintiff

copies of the documents requested in Plaintiff ‘s Request for Production to such defendant,

numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a response to Plaintiff ‘s Request for

Production to Defendant Kaufman number 6, Defendant Kaufman shall serve on Plaintiff

copies of the documents from whatever personnel or similar file specifically related to the

designated officer, where such records are normally maintained, the performance appraisals

and disciplinary records identified in Request 6 as to the named Defendants only, in redacted

form, with unredacted copies filed under seal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Palossari shall serve on Plaintiff

copies of the documents requested in Plaintiff ‘s Request for Production to such defendant,

number 5. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in lieu of a response to Plaintiff’s Request for

Production to Defendant Palossari, number 8, Defendant Palossari shall serve on Plaintiff a

response to the interrogatory: “Provide a summary of all yard closures for Buckley

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 36 of 38
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

- 37 -

Unit/”Blue” side (ie. Side with buildings one and two), stating reasons for closure, from

February 8, 2008 to March 15, 2008.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Markley shall serve on Plaintiff copies

of the documents requested in Plaintiff ‘s Request for Production to such defendant, numbers

3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Markley shall serve on Plaintiff copies

of the documents requested in Plaintiff ‘s Request for Production to such defendant, number

1, limited to communications with or concerning officers Williams and Masella, which may

be redacted by Defendants to avoid specific risks to institutional security.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have fourteen days from the

filing of this Order to file a brief asserting any arguments that Plaintiff’s Request for

Production to Defendant Palossari, numbers 3, 4, 6, and 9, and to Defendant Markely,

numbers 2, 13, 14, and 15 should be restricted despite Defendants’ waiver of any objections.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Cardenas shall serve on Plaintiff a

verification of his previously served responses to interrogatories.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants responses ordered herein above shall

be served on Plaintiff (or responses to orders to show cause filed) within fourteen days of the

filing of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a),

that within twenty-one days of the filing of this Order, Defendants shall pay to Plaintiff the

sum of $77.50 as the costs of the motion to compel, unless within fourteen days of this Order

either party files a notice setting forth an alternative calculation of such costs. In the event

such a notice is filed, the other part(ies) shall have seven days from the service of such notice

to respond thereto.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)

granting sanctions against Defendants Palossari and Markley, the nature of such sanctions

being taken under advisement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within seven days of the filing of this Order,

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 37 of 38
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

- 38 -

Defendants shall file with the Court a copy of Plaintiff’s interrogatories to Defendant

Palossari. 

DATED: September 17, 2010 _____________________________________

JAY R. IRWIN 

S:\Drafts\OutBox\08-2193-161o Order 10 08 17 re MCompel.wpd United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:08-cv-02193-ROS Document 203 Filed 09/20/10 Page 38 of 38