Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02317/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02317-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Lynne Korff, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Phoenix, City of, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-02317-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ fully briefed Motion for Protective Order 

Regarding Deposition of Former Chief Daniel Garcia (Doc. 126). This is a wrongful 

death and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case against the City of Phoenix and named City of Phoenix 

Police Officers for the shooting death of Plaintiff’s adult son. 

 Plaintiff has noticed the deposition of former City of Phoenix Chief of Police, 

Daniel Garcia (Doc. 104). Defendant seeks a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c), (1), 

Fed. R. Civ. P., because former Chief Garcia is a high-ranking official and no 

extraordinary circumstances have been shown which support taking his deposition. See 

Thomas v. Cate, 715 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1049-50 (E.D. Cal. 2010); Sargent v. City of 

Seattle, 2013 WL 1898213, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 7, 2013). Defendants assert that the 

information Plaintiff seeks can be obtained from other sources. 

 Counsel have satisfied the meet and confer requirement, and they have attempted 

to resolve the issue by informal telephonic conference with the Court. Rule 26(c)(1), 

Case 2:13-cv-02317-ESW Document 202 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Fed. R. Civ. P. The Court permitted briefing based upon the information raised in oral 

argument held on January 26, 2015. 

 Plaintiff raises several reasons why Defendants’ Motion should be denied. 

Plaintiff asserts that former Chief Garcia has direct, unique personal knowledge about the 

following: the reasons for the Notice of Laudermill1

 Hearing and Defendant Tiger’s 

termination; Chief Garcia’s personal review and approval of documents listed as trial 

exhibits by Defendants; the Use of Force Review; and the shooting investigation itself. 

Plaintiff disputes former Chief Garcia’s designation as a high ranking official pursuant to 

Detoy v. City & Cnty of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D. 362, 370 (N.D. Cal. 2000). However, 

even if former Chief Garcia were determined to be a high ranking official, Plaintiff 

asserts that extraordinary circumstances have been shown justifying the deposition. 

 The Court finds that former Chief Garcia is a high-ranking official as a matter of 

law. Therefore, the Court must decide if extraordinary circumstances have been shown 

to justify his deposition. The Plaintiff must demonstrate that former Chief Garcia has 

“direct personal factual information pertaining to the material issues in this case that is 

not available through other sources.” Jarbo v. Cnty of Orange, 2010 WL 3584440, at *2-

*3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010). See also Warren v. Washington, 2012 WL 2190788, at *1 

(W.D. Wash. June 14, 2012). 

 The Court finds that Chief Garcia has direct, personal, factual information relevant 

to the shooting by his review of the Use of Force Review results regarding Defendants 

and the shooting investigation by the City of Phoenix Professional Standards Bureau. 

Information Chief Garcia may have known, if any, as to Defendant Tiger’s alleged 

substance abuse, mental health, and prescribed medication during the period of time 

immediately prior to and at the time of the shooting is also relevant. Former Chief 

Garcia’s personal review and approval of documents listed as trial exhibits is also 

discoverable by Plaintiff. 

 

1 Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (requiring government 

employer to provide notice and a hearing to employee prior to termination).

Case 2:13-cv-02317-ESW Document 202 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 Therefore, extraordinary circumstances have been shown to permit the deposition 

of former Chief Garcia. The Court notes that the later firing of Officer Tiger is not an 

area of relevant inquiry unless facts are revealed that pertain to Officer Tiger’s ability to 

see, hear, and react to information presented to him on the day and at the time of the 

officers’ encounter with the decedent. 

 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 126). 

 The Court has also considered Plaintiff’s Motion for the Honorable Court to 

Determine whether Portions of Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Protective 

Order Should Remain under Seal (Doc. 144); Defendant Craig Tiger’s Response to Doc. 

144 and Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 160); and Plaintiff’s Motion for the 

Honorable Court to Determine whether Portions of Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ 

Motion for Protective Order Should Remain under Seal (Doc. 190). 

 IT IS ORDERED sealing Doc. 143, which contains and references a confidential 

report attached as “Exhibit D.” Plaintiff’s Motions (Doc 144 and 190) are granted. 

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 160) is therefore granted in part to the 

extent that the document is sealed in this case, and denied in part as to all other requests. 

 Dated this 1st day of April, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-02317-ESW Document 202 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 3