Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_77-cv-00479/USCOURTS-azd-2_77-cv-00479-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Damian Hart, et al.

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Tom Agnos, et al.

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-77-0479-PHX-NVW

ORDER

The court has reviewed Defendants’ Notice of Filing (doc. # 1235), Plaintiffs’

Request for Status Conference (doc. #1237), and Plaintiffs’ Fifth Pending Motions

Notification (doc. #1210). Pending before the court are the following motions:

• Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Terminate (doc. #906);

• Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion (doc. #1142);

• Motion to Compel Production of Documents (doc. #1165);

• Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants and Their Counsel (doc. #1178);

• Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Argument on Motion to Compel (doc. #1179);

• Plaintiffs’ Request for Status Conference (doc. #1180);

• Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to First Request for Production of

Document (doc. #1181);

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 1 of 16
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 -

• Plaintiffs’ Motion to Refer Discovery Matters to Magistrate Judge (doc.

#1184);

• Motion to Expedite Consideration of Motion for Appointment of Class

Counsel and Consideration of All Pending Motions (doc. #1213);

• Plaintiffs’ Motion for Prior Notice and Other Procedural Safeguards in the

Event of a Court Viewing of the Maricopa County Jail Premises (doc. #1214);

• Defendants’ Motion to Strike (doc. #1224);

• Plaintiffs’ Request for Status Conference (doc. #1237).

The court will rule upon all of the motions and requests identified above except for

Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Terminate (doc. #906), order the parties to meet and

prepare a joint Case Management Report, order a Case Management Conference, order a

Final Pre-Hearing Conference, and set an evidentiary hearing date of August 12, 2008.

I. Rulings on Pending Motions

A. Motion to Expedite Consideration of Motion for Appointment of Class

Counsel and Consideration of All Pending Motions (Doc. #1213)

On April 1, 2008, Judge Earl H. Carroll appointed Debra Hill of Osborn Maledon,

P.A., and Margaret Winter of the ACLU National Prison Project to be counsel for the

Plaintiffs’ class. (Doc. #1221.) On April 8, 2008, Defendants moved the court to

reconsider the appointment Order. (Doc. #1231.) Following transfer of the case to this

court on April 10, 2008 (doc. #1234), the court treated Defendants’ motion for

reconsideration as a response, considered Defendants’ arguments, denied the motion in all

other respects, and reaffirmed the appointment Order on April 16, 2008. (Doc. #1239.) 

Plaintiffs’ request for an order expediting briefing on class counsel appointment therefore

is now moot.

The court agrees with Plaintiffs that all pending motions must be resolved

promptly. For many of these motions, however, it is much too late to refer to their

resolution now as “expedited.” The court will resolve all pending motions either by this

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 2 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Order or according to the process and schedule outlined below. The court therefore will

deny Plaintiffs’ motion to expedite as moot.

B. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Prior Notice and Other Procedural Safeguards in

the Event of a Court Viewing of the Maricopa County Jail Premises (Doc.

#1214)

The court will deny as moot Plaintiffs’ motion regarding a court viewing of the

Maricopa County Jail, which was based upon comments by Judge Carroll that he might

visit the jail without prior notice to the parties. The court will be deciding this case as the

trier of fact governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of

Evidence. In the event it becomes necessary for the court to conduct a portion of an

evidentiary hearing at any of the Maricopa County Jail facilities, the court will so direct in

its pre-hearing orders.

C. Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. #1224) Letter from Terry Peltz (Doc.

#1211)

Defendants move to strike a letter sent to Judge Carroll from Terry Peltz (doc.

#1211). The court will grant Defendants’ motion (doc. #1224) because Mr. Peltz has not

been joined as an individual party, and if he is a member of Plaintiffs’ class, he should be

communicating to the court only through class counsel. 

D. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Refer Discovery Matters to Magistrate Judge (Doc.

#1184)

The court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion to refer discovery matters to a magistrate

judge (doc. #1184) and Defendants’ response (doc. #1185). The court will decline to

refer discovery matters to a magistrate judge to ensure prompt resolution of all issues

impeding final resolution of this case.

E. Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion (Doc. #1142) and Discovery Motions

Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion asks the court to: (1) appoint a health care expert and

an environmental health and safety expert under Fed. R. Evid. 706 to investigate current

conditions; (2) compel Defendants to permit Plaintiffs’ mental health and corrections

experts to inspect the Jail; and (3) compel the Defendants to produce a number of relevant

documents. (Doc. #1142 at 2.) In addition, Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Compel

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 3 of 16
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 -

Production of Documents (doc. #1165); Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants and

Their Counsel (doc. #1178); Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Argument on Motion to Compel

(doc. #1179); and Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to First Request for

Production of Document (doc. #1181). The parties also have filed an Amended

Stipulation for Protective Order (doc. #1169), which has not yet been approved and

ordered by the court. The parties dispute, as threshold issues, which party bears the

burden of proof, what is the relevant time period for proving the “current and ongoing

violation of the Federal right” for termination of the Amended Judgment under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3626(b), whether an evidentiary hearing is required, and whether the Amended

Judgment is automatically stayed under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e).

1. Burden of Proof, Relevant Time Period, Need for Evidentiary

Hearing, and PLRA Automatic Stay

This 1977 class action against Maricopa County and the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office regarding jail conditions for pretrial detainees resulted in the January 10,

1995 entry of the Amended Judgment, a consent decree negotiated by the parties that

expressly did not represent a judicial determination of any constitutionally mandated

standards applicable to the jails. (Doc. #705 at 2, ¶ 2.) Pursuant to the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (“PLRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3626 and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, Defendants filed a

motion to terminate the Amended Judgment in 1998 (doc. #755) and later renewed their

motion to terminate on September 25, 2001 (doc. #821). On September 12, 2002, Judge

Carroll denied Defendants’ motion to terminate without prejudice subject to findings to

be entered following an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. #840.) On November 14, 2003,

Defendants filed a pre-hearing memorandum in support of a renewed motion to terminate,

which operates as Defendants’ current motion to terminate the Amended Judgment. 

(Doc. #906.) The parties raise the following threshold issues in the pending motions:

a. Status of Amended Judgment. The PLRA provides that any order for

prospective relief regarding prison conditions is terminable, not terminated, upon the

motion of any party or intervener two years after the court granted or approved the

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 4 of 16
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

- 5 -

prospective relief, one year after the court has entered an order denying termination of

prospective relief under the PLRA, or two years after the enactment of the PLRA for

previous orders. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1). Subsection (b)(2) provides the defendant or

intervener shall be entitled to “immediate” termination, regardless of when the order was

issued, but “a district court cannot terminate prospective relief without determining

whether the existing relief (in whole or in part) exceeds the constitutional minimum.” 

Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 1007 (9th Cir. 2000). The statute limits the scope of

federal jurisdiction to enforce the prospective aspect of final judgments in prison

conditions cases, but it does not require the termination of consent decrees or other final

judgments. Id. at 1001. The PLRA, therefore, is not self-executing. A judge must decide

which, if any, provisions of the Amended Judgment must be terminated under the statute.

Further, although subsection (b)(2) provides for immediate termination of any

prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of certain findings,

it is not necessary that the explicit findings were made, “so long as the record, the court’s

decision ordering prospective relief, and the relevant caselaw fairly disclose that the relief

actually meets the § 3626(b)(2) narrow tailoring standard.” Gilmore, 220 F.3d at 1007

n.25. “If existing relief was so crafted according to the record and relevant caselaw, the

findings required by the statute are implicit in the court’s judgment.” Id.

b. PLRA Automatic Stay. The PLRA requires the court to “promptly rule on any

motion to modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil action with respect to prison

conditions.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(1). The motion will automatically operate as a stay

beginning thirty days after it is filed, and the court may postpone the effective date of an

automatic stay for good cause for not more than sixty additional days. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3626(e)(2) & (3). “Once the 90-day period has passed, the § 3626(b) motion ‘shall

operate as a stay’ until the court rules on the § 3626(b) motion.” Miller v. French, 530

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 5 of 16
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

 Judge Carroll’s April 1, 2008 Order that Defendants produce reports specified in the

Amended Judgment within thirty days of the Order expressly does so to facilitate discovery

and resolution of Defendants’ termination motion and not to enforce the Amended Judgment

itself. (Doc. #1220.)

- 6 -

U.S. 327, 340 (2000). Thus, the prospective relief granted in the Amended Judgment is

stayed and has been since at least 2003.1

 

c. Burden of Proof. Defendants bear the burden of proving their motion to

terminate the Amended Judgment. Under the PLRA, a defendant “shall be entitled to the

immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in

the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further

than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2). 

However, subsection (b)(2) is limited by subsection (b)(3): “Prospective relief shall not

terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief

remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends

no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the

prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the

violation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(3).

Under the PLRA termination provisions, the party seeking to terminate the

prospective relief bears the burden of proving, with “careful application of law to fact,”

that the relief ordered exceeds the constitutional minimum:

First, nothing in the termination provisions can be said to shift the burden of

proof from the party seeking to terminate the prospective relief. Second,

and more importantly, although § 3626(b)(2) speaks of ‘immediate

termination,’ and although § 3626(e)(1) requires a ‘prompt’ ruling, a district

court cannot terminate prospective relief without determining whether the

existing relief (in whole or in part) exceeds the constitutional minimum. 

And, consistent with § 3626(b)(3), a district court cannot terminate or

refuse to grant prospective relief necessary to correct a current and ongoing

violation, so long as the relief is tailored to the constitutional minimum. 

Thus, unless plaintiffs do not contest defendants’ showing that there is no

current and ongoing violation under § 3626(b)(3), the court must inquire

into current conditions at a prison before ruling on a motion to terminate. If

the existing relief qualifies for termination under § 3626(b)(2), but there is a

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 6 of 16
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

- 7 -

current and ongoing violation, the district court will have to modify the

relief to meet the Act’s standards. It is plain that each of these steps

requires real adjudication–the careful application of law to fact–not the

wooden ratification of a legislatively prescribed conclusion.

Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987, 1007-08 (9th Cir. 2000) (footnote omitted). Thus,

Defendants bear the burden of proving both (1) prospective relief granted by the

Amended Judgment exceeds the constitutional minimum and (2) prospective relief is not

necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of pretrial detainees’ constitutional

rights. Both Defendants and Plaintiffs must disclose information they intend to offer at

the evidentiary hearing by dates that will be established in a Case Management Order.

d. Relevant Time Period and Need for Evidentiary Hearing. To make the

findings required to terminate prospective relief, the court must take evidence on current

jail conditions, at least with respect to those remedies Plaintiffs do not concede

Defendants are in compliance with constitutional requirements. See Gilmore, 220 F.3d at

1010. Evidence of “current and ongoing” violations must reflect conditions “as of the

time termination is sought.” Id.; accord Pierce v. Orange County, __ F.3d __, 2008 WL

762072 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2008) (PLRA termination standard requires assessment of the

legal and factual circumstances at the time termination is sought). Although Defendants

have been seeking termination since 1998, the court’s findings must be based on current

evidence. Therefore, the court concludes that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to make

findings based on a current record. The court will hold the evidentiary hearing beginning

August 12, 2008, and the court will order the parties to jointly plan for appropriate

discovery regarding jail conditions during the period of July 1, 2007, through June 30,

2008. 

2. Rule 706 Experts

In their Omnibus Motion Plaintiffs move for appointment of a health care expert

and an environmental health and safety expert pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 706. (Doc.

#1142.) Rule 706 permits the court to appoint expert witnesses to perform duties directed

by the court and to order that the witnesses be compensated by the parties in such

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 7 of 16
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 -

proportion and at such time as the court directs. Nothing in the rule limits parties in

calling expert witnesses of their own selection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 706(d). 

Courts do not commonly appoint an expert pursuant to Rule 706 and usually do so

only in “exceptional cases in which the ordinary adversary process does not suffice” or

when a case presents compelling circumstances warranting appointment of an expert. In

re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litigation, 830 F. Supp. 686, 693 (E.D.N.Y. 1993);

Carranza v. Fraas, 471 F. Supp. 2d 8, 9 (D.D.C. 2007). Plaintiffs have made no showing

that the evidence or claims here are so complex that the appointment of a court expert is

necessary or that this case presents compelling circumstances warranting the appointment

of experts. See Carranza, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 10; Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358-

59 (7th Cir. 1997) (district court did not abuse its discretion by denying request to appoint

expert under Rule 706 where factual issues were not so complicated that an expert was

required); Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States, 640 F.2d 328, 334-35 (Ct. Cl. 1980)

(trial judge did not abuse its discretion by denying appointment of experts where judge

concluded additional experts would not serve to elucidate, clarify, or enlighten him, but

instead would add more divergence and opinion differences in a cumulative manner). 

The court, therefore, will deny the portion of Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion requesting

appointment of Rule 706 experts.

3. Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Opportunity to Inspect

The court will grant in part the portion of Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion requesting

the court to compel Defendants to permit Plaintiffs’ experts to inspect Maricopa County

Jail facilities, but the court will issue specific orders regarding expert inspections as part

of the Case Management Order to issue following the Case Management Conference. As

directed below, the court will order the parties to include in their joint Case Management

Report proposed terms for these inspections. 

4. Plaintiffs’ Request for Scheduling Order Providing Six-Month

Discovery Period and Resumed Evidentiary Hearing

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 8 of 16
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 -

The court will grant Plaintiffs’ request for a scheduling order, which will issue

after the court has received the parties’ joint Case Management Report ordered below and

held the Case Management Conference with the parties. The court will deny Plaintiffs’

request for a six-month discovery period and a resumed evidentiary hearing. 

Having determined that the relevant time period for evidence of “current and

ongoing” constitutional violations is July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008, the court finds

that evidence presented in November 2003 and January 2004 cannot be assumed to be

relevant. Therefore, the court will not “resume” the 2003-2004 evidentiary hearing, but

instead will hold a new evidentiary hearing on August 12, 2008. If a party wishes to

offer evidence in the 2008 hearing that was presented during the unfinished 2003-2004

evidentiary hearing, the offering party must prove its relevance and admissibility.

The discovery period will be less than six months. The PLRA plainly conveys

congressional intent that termination of prospective relief regarding prison conditions be

decided swiftly by referring to termination as “immediate,” requiring the court to rule

“promptly,” and providing mandamus to remedy any failure to issue a prompt ruling on a

termination motion. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), (b)(3), & (e)(1). Further, the statute’s thirtyday period before a termination motion automatically stays prospective relief indicates

Congress intended that this “prompt” and “immediate” ruling be made within thirty days

in most cases. See id. at § 3626(e)(2)(A)(i). The statute permits the court to postpone the

effective date of the automatic stay for an additional sixty days, but only for good cause,

and not because of general congestion of the court’s calendar. Id. at § 3626(e)(3); see

also Miller, 530 U.S. at 350 (“Through the PLRA, Congress clearly intended to make

operation of the automatic stay mandatory, precluding courts from exercising their

equitable powers to enjoin the stay.”). The court, therefore, will order the parties to

propose a case management plan that includes discovery ending in time for the parties to

prepare for the August 12, 2008 evidentiary hearing.

5. Discovery Motions and Stipulated Protective Order

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 9 of 16
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 -

In their Omnibus Motion filed May 30, 2006, Plaintiffs requested that Defendants

be compelled to produce documents requested in April 2004, but state that in March 2006

they limited their requests to recent years. (Doc. #1142 at 5 & n.5.) Two of the

categories of documents are reports required by the Amended Judgment. (Doc. #1142-2,

Exh. B.) On April 1, 2008, Judge Carroll ordered that Defendants produce within thirty

days reports specified in the Amended Judgment to the extent not previously provided. 

(Doc. #1220.)

In addition, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents on

October 10, 2006 (doc. #1165), a Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants and Their

Counsel on November 21, 2006 (doc. #1178), and a Motion to Compel Supplemental

Responses to First Request for Production of Document on November 30, 2006 (doc.

#1181). Regarding these motions, the parties have disputed issues that are clarified by

this Order, e.g., the relevant time period for evidence of “current” jail conditions, and

other issues that now are moot, e.g., their obligations under Magistrate Judge Sitver’s

September 30, 2005 Order (doc. #1105) and subsequent orders to stay (doc. #1120) and

then lift the stay on Judge Sitver’s Order on September 29, 2006 (doc. #1164). 

Moreover, it is unclear how Plaintiffs would have been able to identify specific areas of

current constitutional concern taking into account the opening of new jails in 2005 before

they had obtained discovery regarding jail conditions in 2005 and how Defendants could

produce confidential documents before a protective order was entered. Further, Plaintiffs

acknowledged that they no longer needed information for some of the years requested. 

When the parties prepare their joint Case Management Report, in light of the court’s

rulings in this Order, the parties will be better able to determine what, if any, of the

discovery requested in 2006 remains outstanding and relevant. As part of their discovery

planning, the parties are directed to review the Amended Stipulation of the Parties for a

Protective Order (doc. #1169), revise as appropriate, and file a new stipulation and

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 10 of 16
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

 It appears that Defendants have produced confidential documents under the terms

of the proposed protective order. (See doc. #1175.) 

- 11 -

proposed protective order for the court’s approval.2 The court, therefore, will deny

Plaintiffs’ three discovery motions (docs. ##1165, 1178, 1181), their requests for oral

argument (docs. ##1178, 1179), and the portions of the Omnibus Motion regarding

discovery (doc. #1142) without prejudice.

Because it is not apparent from these discovery motions that the parties have

consistently complied with LRCiv 7.2(j), the parties are reminded: 

No discovery motion will be considered or decided unless a statement of

moving counsel is attached thereto certifying that after personal

consultation and sincere efforts to do so, counsel have been unable to

satisfactorily resolve the matter. Any discovery motion brought before the

Court without prior personal consultation with the other party and a sincere

effort to resolve the matter, may result in sanctions.

Personal consultation requires face-to-face communication, or at least telephone

communication. Letters, faxes, and e-mails are insufficient.

F. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Status Conference (Docs. ##1180, 1237)

The court will grant Plaintiffs’ requests for status conference.

II. Case Management

A. Case Management Conference and Report

A Case Management Conference will be set for May 19, 2008, at 3:00 p.m., to

prepare for the August 12, 2008 evidentiary hearing on Defendants’ Renewed Motion to

Terminate the Amended Judgment (doc. #906). Trial counsel who will be responsible for

representing each party at the evidentiary hearing shall appear and participate in the Case

Management Conference and shall have authority to enter into stipulations regarding all

matters that may be discussed. During or after the Case Management Conference, the

court will enter a Case Management Order.

In preparation for the Case Management Conference, the parties are directed to

meet and confer no later than May 12, 2008. It is the responsibility of Defendants, the

moving parties, to initiate the case management planning meeting and preparation of the

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 11 of 16
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 -

Case Management Report. The parties will exchange their written proposals for the Case

Management Report at least two business days before the parties meet and confer. At

this meeting the parties shall develop a joint Case Management Report that contains the

following information in separately numbered paragraphs:

1. The parties who attended the case management planning meeting and assisted

in developing the Case Management Report;

2. A brief description of “current and ongoing” jail conditions that Plaintiffs’

allege, based on incomplete discovery, require prospective relief under the PLRA;

3. Identification of specific prospective relief provided by the Amended

Judgment (with paragraph references) that Defendants contend are not enforceable under

the PLRA and for each contention, a brief description of Defendants’ basis for the

contention and whether Plaintiffs agree with Defendants’ contention (e.g., “exceeds

constitutional minimum,” “constitutionally required, but no violation,” “constitutionally

required, but isolated incident that does not constitute current and ongoing violation”); 

 4. A description of necessary discovery, including an initial identification of

subject areas likely to be relevant to determination of constitutional violations (e.g.,

access to the court, religious expression, medical services, physical exercise, safety), the

number and types of experts needed by each side, terms for permitting Plaintiffs’ experts

opportunity to inspect jail conditions and interview pretrial detainees, and whether the

parties will need to depose experts, bearing in mind that any discovery will be conducted

in time for the August 12, 2008 hearing; 

5. A stipulation and proposed protective order, if needed;

6. The estimated amount of time needed for the August 12, 2008 evidentiary

hearing;

7. Proposed specific dates for completion of discovery and Rule 26(a)(3)

disclosure with adequate time to exchange exhibits and drafts of the Proposed Final PreHearing Order by July 28, 2008, in preparation for the Final Pre-Hearing Conference on

August 4, 2008, at 1:30 p.m.; and

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 12 of 16
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

- 13 -

8. Any other matter that will aid the court and parties in resolving this case

promptly. 

The parties shall jointly file the Case Management Report with the Clerk no later

than May 15, 2008. 

B. Final Pre-hearing Conference and Proposed Final Pre-Hearing Order

The Final Pre-Hearing Conference will be set for August 4, 2008, at 1:30 p.m.

Trial counsel who will be responsible for representing each party at the evidentiary

hearing shall attend the Final Pre-Hearing Conference. The parties jointly shall prepare a

Proposed Final Pre-Hearing Order and shall lodge it with the court no later than 4:00

p.m. on July 30, 2008. The parties shall submit a copy of the Proposed Final PreHearing Order to the court in WordPerfect® 9.0 or higher (or compatible) format by

email to Wake_Chambers@azd.uscourts.gov.

The Proposed Final Pre-Hearing Order shall include the information prescribed in

the Proposed Final Pretrial Order for Bench Trial form found at www.azd.uscourts.gov

under Judges & Courtrooms/Orders, Forms and Procedures/Judge Wake. Information

shall not be set forth in the form of a question, but shall be presented in concise narrative

statements.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c), the court will not allow the parties to offer any

exhibit, witness, or other evidence that was not disclosed in accordance with the

provisions of this Order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and listed in the

Proposed Final Pre-Hearing Order, except to prevent manifest injustice.

The parties shall exchange drafts of the Proposed Final Pre-Hearing Order no later

than July 28, 2008. The parties shall (a) meet in person and exchange copies of all

exhibits to be used at the evidentiary hearing no later than July 28, 2008, and (b)

eliminate any duplicate exhibits while meeting to exchange exhibits. Defendants shall

have the burden of initiating communications concerning the Proposed Final Pre-Hearing

Order. Any exhibit not exchanged at this meeting shall be precluded at the evidentiary

hearing.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 13 of 16
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 -

Each party shall lodge proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with the

Proposed Final Pre-Hearing Order no later than July 28, 2008. The proposed findings of

fact and conclusions of law shall also be submitted in WordPerfect® 9.0 or higher (or

compatible) format by email to Wake_Chambers@azd.uscourts.gov. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Motion to Expedite Consideration of Motion

for Appointment of Class Counsel and Consideration of All Pending Motions (doc.

#1213) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Prior Notice and Other

Procedural Safeguards in the Event of a Court Viewing of the Maricopa County Jail

Premises (doc. #1214) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike (doc. #1224) is

granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Refer Discovery Matters to

Magistrate Judge (doc. #1184) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion (doc. #1142) is

granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. Defendants bear the burden of proof on their motion to terminate prospective

relief provided in the Amended Judgment.

2. The motion to terminate will be decided based on jail conditions during the

period of July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008.

3. An evidentiary hearing on the motion to terminate is set for August 12, 2008,

which will not resume the 2003-2004 evidentiary hearing.

 4. The request for appointment of Rule 706 experts is denied.

5. Plaintiffs’ experts will be permitted to inspect Maricopa County Jail facilities

but only as provided by agreement of the parties or further order.

6. The discovery period will be concluded in time for the August 12, 2008

evidentiary hearing.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 14 of 16
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 -

7. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel within their Omnibus Motion is denied without

prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of

Documents (doc. #1165), Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants and Their Counsel

(doc. #1178), Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to First Request for Production

of Document (doc. #1181), and Motion for Oral Argument on Motion to Compel (doc.

#1179) are denied without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Requests for Status Conference

(docs. ##1180, #1237) are granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to meet and confer as described

above no later than May 12, 2008, and shall exchange their written proposals for the Case

Management Report at least two business days before meeting.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to file a Case Management

Report no later than May 15, 2008.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Case Management Conference be held on

May 19, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall exchange drafts of the Proposed

Final Pre-Hearing Order by July 28, 2008, and shall jointly prepare a Proposed Final PreHearing Order and lodge it with the court no later than 4:00 p.m. on July 30, 2008.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 15 of 16
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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Final Pre-Hearing Conference be held on

August 4, 2008 at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing on Defendants’ motion

to terminate the Amended Judgment be held on August 12, 2008 at 9:00 a.m..

 DATED this 24th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 1241 Filed 04/25/08 Page 16 of 16