Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00623/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00623-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leonard Deon Irvin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et

al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0623-PHX-RCB

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. # 43) and the response of

Plaintiff’s former counsel Jess Lorona (Doc. # 53). The Court will deny the motion.

On February 26, 2008, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s former counsel Jess Lorona to

transmit a copy of Plaintiff’s file to Plaintiff by March 12, 2008 (Doc. # 38). In Plaintiff’s

instant motion, Plaintiff claims that he received “partial” disclosure of his file from Lorona,

but that Lorona failed to provide Plaintiff with all of the photographs, compact discs, and

video recordings in his possession (Doc. # 43). In support, Plaintiff provided evidence that

Lorona or his firm received at least 26 photographs from Jeff Bachtle and 4 copies of video

recordings from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (id., exs.). Plaintiff claims that he has

only received copies of 10 of the 26 photographs and has not received a copy of the compact

disc with his medical records and x-rays, nor has he received copies of the video recordings

from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

In response, Lorona avers that he sent the entire file to Plaintiff, but in the event that

Case 2:07-cv-00623-RCB Document 56 Filed 05/28/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

some materials were inadvertently left out, he resent copies of all photographs, compact

discs, and video recordings in his possession (Doc. # 53). Lorona also provided to the Court

photocopies of the discs containing such materials that were sent to Plaintiff. In so doing,

Lorona has introduced evidence that he has met his burden pursuant to ABA Model Rule of

Professional Conduct 1.16, which requires a lawyer to return “papers and property” to which

the client is entitled.

Plaintiff has not replied to Lorona’s response, and therefore has not countered

Lorona’s avowal that he has sent Plaintiff the entire file in this case. Because Lorona has

supplied the Court with evidence that he has sent copies of all photographs, compact discs,

and video recordings to Plaintiff and Plaintiff has not indicated that he has not received them,

the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

In accordance with the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. # 43) is DENIED.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00623-RCB Document 56 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 2