Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01760/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01760-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

Richard Steven Reiss, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV 09-1760-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Karl Stansel, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

Introduction

Currently there are three matters pending before the court,

all of which pertain to defendants’ recent service upon plaintiff

of supplemental discovery responses. After defendants filed their

Notices of Service of those responses, plaintiff filed three

separate documents, which he styles as “Response[s] in

Opposition[]” to defendants’ various supplemental discovery

responses. Resps. (Docs. 128; 132 and 134). In each of these

Responses, plaintiff “requests” court orders “suppressing”

defendants’ supplemental discovery responses; and “precluding

[them] from attempting to re-open discovery in this matter.” Resp.

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 1 of 12
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 -

(Doc. 128) at 1; Resps. (Docs. 132 and 134) at 2. As to

defendants’ first filed Notice (Doc. 126), plaintiff also “requests

the Court enjoin Defendants from attempting to submit any new or

supplemental discovery that was not disclosed prior to the January

18, 2011 close of discovery.” Reply (Doc. 135) at 2 (emphasis

added). 

Given the relief which plaintiff is seeking, the court is

treating his “Responses in Opposition” as motions. Indeed, at

least with respect to defendants’ first Notice, the parties seem to

be of the same view. As to that Notice and plaintiff’s “Response”

thereto, defendants filed their own “response[,]” asserting that

“‘suppression’ of [their] Supplemental Response” as to the

interrogatories is “unnecessary.” Defs’ Resp. (Doc. 133) at 2:12-

13. Plaintiff, in turn, filed a “Reply” to that Response. See

Reply (Doc. 135). To be sure, that is the only “Response”

defendants filed in connection with their supplemental discovery

disclosures. Even so, there is no prejudice to defendants if the

court deems plaintiff’s “Responses in Opposition” to be motions

because, as explained below, the court is denying plaintiff’s

requested relief. 

Background

The Rule 16 Scheduling and Discovery Order (“the Rule 16

Order”) in this case provides, among other things, for the

completion of discovery, including “supplement[ing] all discovery,

. . . on or before January 18, 2011.” Ord. (Doc. 39) at 2:14 and

16 (emphases in original). On May 24, 2011, defendants Stansel and

Behrens filed a “Notice of Service of Discovery to Plaintiff”

pertaining to their “Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s First

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 2 of 12
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 Despite indicating that a copy of plaintiff’s letter is attached to

defendants’ response, it is not. Plaintiff did include a copy of that letter

though as exhibit C to his reply. See Reply (Doc. 135), exh. C thereto. 

- 3 -

Non-Uniform Interrogatories[.]” Not. (Doc. 126) at 15-16; and at

22-23 (emphasis in original). 

Plaintiff challenges service of that supplemental discovery

response on procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, he

argues that that supplemental response is untimely given the

January 18, 2011, discovery cut-off date. Substantively, plaintiff

asserts that defendants are not supplementing their response to his

first non-uniform interrogatories, but rather they are “completely

chang[ing] their original response[.]” Id. Plaintiff speculates

that defendants made that asserted “change . . . either because

[the original response] was false or because it conflicts with

statements other, [sic] current ICE [United States Immigration and

Customs Enforcement] and EDC [Eloy Detention Center] staff . . .

recently made to [him].” Id.

Presuming that plaintiff is referring to Interrogatory No. 1,

defendants explain that on May 11, 2011, they received a letter

from plaintiff “requesting confirmation of [their] original

response” to that interrogatory. Resp. (Doc. 133) at 1:27-2:1.1 

As defendants explain it, after becoming “aware” of and “agree[ing]

with plaintiff as to the need for “clarification[,]” defendants

“supplemented their original response” to Interrogatory No. 1. Id.

at 2:2-3. Arguing that “‘suppression’” of this supplemental

response is “unnecessary[,]” defendants stress that plaintiff

requested that response, which “clarifi[es]” an issue; hence their

supplemental response was “appropriate.” Id. at 2:12-13; and at

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 3 of 12
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 -

2:5-6. Defendants also correctly point out that supplementation of

their response was “appropriate and timely pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(e), which requires supplementation of interrogatory

responses.” Id. at 2:608. Lastly, defendants contend that if

plaintiff believes that their supplemental response to

Interrogatory No. 1 is “contrary” to their original response, that

is a “credibility” issue, properly left for trial. Id. at 2:9-10.

In his reply, plaintiff takes issue with defendants’

characterization of both their supplemental discovery response and

his letter dated May 6, 2011. As to the former, plaintiff asserts

that it was “neither supplemental nor did it clarify anything.” 

Reply (Doc. 135) at 1. Rather, from plaintiff’s standpoint, that

supplemental response “seeks to supersede the original[,]” and

“does not even address the subject of the interrogatory[.]” Id.

(citation omitted). Insofar as plaintiff’s May 6th letter is

concerned, plaintiff notes, as that letter reflects, that he was

“merely request[ing] counsel to confirm whether the original

response to the interrogatory was false[.]” Id. at 2 (citing exh.

C thereto). 

On June 3, 2011, defendants filed another “Notice of Service”

stating that on May 27, 2011, they had served plaintiff with their

“Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement[.]” Id. at 1:19. Also on

that date, June 3, 2011, defendants filed a “Notice of Service”

upon plaintiff of their “Third Supplemental Disclosure

Statement[.]” Not. (Doc. 131) at 1:12; and at 1:19. 

Plaintiff filed two separate but identical responses to those

two Notices. Plaintiff contends that given the January 18, 2011,

discovery deadline, those two supplemental disclosure statements

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 4 of 12
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 -

are untimely. As noted at the outset, plaintiff, therefore,

“requests . . . suppress[ion]” of those two statements, and “an

Order precluding Defendants from continuing to attempt to re-open

discovery in this matter.” Resps. (Docs. 132 and 134) at 2. 

In the midst of these discovery disputes, after this court

granted in part and denied in part defendants’ summary judgment

motion (Doc. 127), on June 2, 2011, the Honorable Edward C. Voss,

United States Magistrate Judge ordered the withdrawal of the

reference, indicating “that this matter is now ready for trial.” 

Doc. 129. 

Discussion

I. Service of Supplemental Discovery Responses

In addition to setting a discovery cutoff date of January 18,

2011, the Rule 16 Order herein “remind[s]” the parties that it

“governs and supersedes the ‘30 days before trial’ disclosure

deadline contained in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3).” Ord. (Doc. 39) at

2:16-18, ¶ 6. In relevant part that Rule 16 order thus states:

(1) failure to timely supplement Rule 26(a) 

disclosures, including witnesses and exhibits 

for trial, (2) failure to timely supplement 

responses to any valid discovery requests,

. . . may result in the exclusion of such 

evidence at trial[.]” 

Id. at 2:18-3:1 (emphasis added). Perhaps those provisions form 

the basis for plaintiff’s argument that the court should suppress

as untimely defendants’ supplemental discovery responses. That

order cannot be read in isolation, however. It must be read in

conjunction with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), which governs supplementing

discovery disclosures and responses. Subsection (1) of that Rule

states:

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 5 of 12
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 -

A party who has made a disclosure under 

Rule 26(a) – or who has responded to an interrogatory, 

request for production, or request for admission – 

must supplement or correct its disclosure or response:

(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some 

material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete

or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective 

information has not otherwise been made known to the 

other parties during the discovery process or in writing;

or

(B) as ordered by the court.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) (emphasis added). Especially given the

discretionary language of the Rule 16 Order and the mandatory

language of Rule 26(e)(1), the court finds that the two are not at

odds. Thus, because on the record as presently constituted it

appears that defendants were fulfilling their continuing obligation

to supplement under Rule 26(e)(1), the court denies plaintiff’s

“motions” to suppress as untimely defendants’ supplemental

discovery responses. The court denies those motions without

prejudice, however.

Further, the court agrees with defendants that insofar as

plaintiff is challenging the substance of their responses to his

First Non-Uniform Interrogatories, plaintiff may explore that issue

at trial. 

II. Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order

Because this action is now ready for trial, the court hereby

ORDERS that plaintiff pro se and the attorney or attorneys who will

be responsible for the trial of this lawsuit to prepare a proposed

Joint Final Pretrial Order and lodge it with the Clerk of the Court

no later than six (6) weeks from the filing date of this order. 

Although it is plaintiff pro se’s responsibility to ensure

that the proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order is properly prepared

and timely lodged, defendants shall cooperate with plaintiff pro se

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 6 of 12
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 As an aside, the court observes that this motion was not necessary

because, despite what defendants contend, the July 26, 2010, Rule 16 Scheduling and

Discovery Order did not include a time frame for filing the Proposed Joint Pretrial

Order. 

- 7 -

to ensure that such Order is properly prepared and timely lodged. 

That proposed Joint Final Proposed Pretrial Order shall be signed

by plaintiff pro se and defense counsel. Plaintiff pro se may

authorize defense counsel to sign on his behalf. 

The content of the proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order shall

include, but is not limited to, that prescribed in the form of the

proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order attached hereto. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d) and 37(c), the court will

not allow the parties to modify the Joint Final Pretrial Order or

introduce at trial any exhibits, witnesses, or other information or

to make any objections to exhibits that were not previously

specified and/or disclosed as directed by the Court in the Joint

Final Pretrial Order, except to prevent manifest injustice. 

Galdamez v. Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005). 

After the lodging of the signed proposed Joint Final Pretrial

Order, at a date to be set by the court, the parties shall

participate telephonically in a Pretrial Conference to discuss that

Proposed Order. Following that Pretrial Conference, the court will

issue the Final Pretrial Order and set a trial date for this

action. 

In light of the foregoing, the court hereby denies as moot

“Defendants [sic] Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed

Joint Pretrial Order” (Doc. 138).2

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) “Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 7 of 12
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 -

Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s First Non-Uniform

Interrogatories” (Doc. 128), which the court deems to be a motion

to suppress, is DENIED without prejudice;

(2) “Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Second

Supplemental Disclosure Statement” (Doc. 132), which the court

deems to be a motion to suppress, is DENIED without prejudice;

(3) “Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Third

Supplemental Disclosure Statement” (Doc. 134), which the court

deems to be a motion to suppress, is DENIED without prejudice; 

(4) “Defendants [sic] Motion for Extension of time to File

Proposed Joint Pretrial Order” (Doc. 138) is DENIED as moot; and 

(5) the parties shall lodge a Proposed Joint Final Pretrial

Order in accordance herewith by no later than six (6) weeks from

the filing date of this order.

DATED this 24th day of June, 2011.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 8 of 12
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

RICHARD STEVEN REISS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIV 09-1760 PHX RCB

 )

vs. ) FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

 )

KARL STANSEL, et al., )

 )

Defendants, ) )

This Final Pretrial Order supersedes the pleadings and

shall govern the trial and further proceedings in this case.

A. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. Cite the statute(s) which

gives this Court jurisdiction:

(example - Jurisdiction in this case is based on 

diversity of citizenship under Title 28 

 U.S.C. §1332.)

B. NATURE OF ACTION. Provide a concise statement of

the type of case, the cause of the action, and the relief 

sought:

 (example - This is a products liability case wherein 

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 9 of 12
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 plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries 

sustained when he fell from the driver's seat of the 

forklift. The plaintiff contends that the forklift was 

defectively designed and manufactured by the defendant 

and the defects were a producing cause of his injuries 

and damages.)

C. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. With respect to each

count of the complaint, counterclaim or cross-claim, and to any

defense, affirmative defense, or the rebuttal of a presumption

where the burden of proof has shifted, the party having the

burden of proof shall list the elements or standards that must be

proved in order for the party to prevail on that claim or

defense:

(example - In order to prevail on this products

liability case, the plaintiff, must prove the following

elements...)

example - In order to defeat this products liability

claim based on the statute of limitations or repose,

the defendant must prove the following elements... D. STIPULATION AND UNCONTESTED FACTS

E. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW (See and refer to

subpart C above)

F. LIST OF WITNESSES. Include or separately attach a

list(s) of witnesses, identifying each as either plaintiff's or

defendants' witnesses and indicating whether the witness is a

fact or expert witness.

G. LIST OF EXHIBITS. Include or separately attach a

list(s) of numbered exhibits, identifying each as either

plaintiff's or defendants', with a description of each containing

sufficient information to identify the exhibit, indicating

whether there is an objection to its admission and, if so, the

nature of the objection(s) anticipated. The actual exhibits must

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 10 of 12
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 -

be later marked according to instructions which will be provided

at the final pre-trial conference.

H. LIST OF DEPOSITIONS. Include or separately attach

those portions of depositions that will be read at trial by each

party listed by page and line number, whether there is an

objection to each passage and, if so, the nature of the

objection.

I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Motions in Limine are intended

to encompass only significant evidentiary issues and are

generally discouraged. Such motions, if allowed, 

shall be filed by , 20 . Any responses 

shall be filed by , 20 . No replies may be

filed without permission of the court. Motions in Limine are

deemed submitted without argument.

J. LIST OF ANY PENDING UNRULED UPON MOTIONS

K. PROBABLE LENGTH OF TRIAL

For a Bench Trial

L. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

shall be simultaneously filed by ,

20 .

 For a Jury Trial

M. INSTRUCTIONS. The parties shall seek to stipulate

to jury instructions and any stipulated jury instructions shall

be filed , 20 . Instructions

which are not agreed upon shall include citation to authority

which shall not exceed one page per instruction and shall be

filed by , 20 . Objections to

any non-agreed upon instruction shall include citation to

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 11 of 12
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 -

authority which shall not exceed one page per instruction and may

be filed by , 20 .

N. VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS. Any proposed voir dire questions

shall be filed by , 20 .

O. CERTIFICATIONS. Plaintiff, pro se, and defense counsel

in this action do hereby certify and acknowledge the

following:

1. All discovery has been completed.

2. The identity of each witness has been disclosed

to plaintiff, pro se, and defense counsel.

3. Each exhibit listed herein (a) is in existence;

and (b) has been disclosed and shown to plaintiff, pro se, and

defense counsel.

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

 Plaintiff, pro se Attorney for Defendants 

 

THIS JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER IS HEREBY APPROVED AND TRIAL IS 

SET FOR , 20 AT 9:00 A.M., COURTROOM 606,

Sixth Floor, Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse, 401 W.

Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona; COUNSEL SHALL APPEAR AT 8:30

A.M.

DATED this day of , 2011.

 ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01760-RCB Document 139 Filed 06/24/11 Page 12 of 12