Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02524/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02524-3/pdf.json

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

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Blake Smalley, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C Contino, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-02524-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant Maricopa County has filed a motion for in camera review of documents 

and a protective order. Doc. 108. The Court will deny the motion. 

 The Court entered an order on December 12, 2013, finding that the County had 

failed to meet the burden necessary to assert the deliberative process privilege and 

ordering it to produce requested executive session minutes. Doc. 95 at 3. The County 

states in this motion that it has conducted a search of executive session minutes and has 

found no minutes related to any issues in this case. Doc. 108 at 3. The County asks the 

Court to review a spreadsheet of its search results, agree with its conclusion, and issue a 

protective order prohibiting disclosure of the spreadsheet and the minutes. Id. 

 Rule 26(b)(1) requires the County to produce “any nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court has ruled 

that the County cannot rely on the deliberative process privilege with respect to executive 

session minutes. Thus, if those minutes contain any information within the scope of 

discovery called for by Rule 26(b)(1) – relevant to any party’s claim or defense – and 

responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, the County must produce it. If the minutes 

Case 2:12-cv-02524-DLR Document 125 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

do not contain such information, the County need not produce it under Rule 26(b)(1). 

But it is the County’s responsibility, not the Court’s, to identify and produce responsive 

minutes. The Court will not undertake the in camera review suggested by the County. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion (Doc. 108) is denied. The County 

will produce any responsive executive session minutes within seven days of this order. 

 Dated this 5th day of February, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02524-DLR Document 125 Filed 02/05/14 Page 2 of 2