Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01729-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

James E. Skinner, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1729-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery in which

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Ryan to produce documents responsive to his

requests for production. (Doc. 102) Defendant has filed a Response and Plaintiff has filed a

Reply. (Docs. 116, 117) Plaintiff also filed a Supplement to his Motion to Compel. (Doc. 121)

Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions against Defendants’ counsel. (Doc.

115) Defendants’ counsel has filed a Response and Plaintiff has filed a Reply. (Docs. 124, 130)

Plaintiff also filed a Supplement to his Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. (Doc. 118)

I. Background

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 14, 2012, by lodging a Complaint. (Docs. 1-2) Plaintiff also

requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted. (Docs. 3, 6) On September

21, 2012, the assigned District Judge denied Plaintiff’s request to exceed the page limit and file

the Complaint, but granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days

thereafter. (Doc. 6) 

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 152 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 11
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

1Thirteen defendants have answered. The fourteenth, Rita Duarte, was dismissed without

prejudice on March 13, 2014 for failure to serve pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). (Doc. 134)

- 2 -

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 2, 2012. (Doc. 8) Plaintiff

raised two grounds for relief against seventeen separate defendants. In Count I, Plaintiff alleged

he is being deprived of basic necessities in violation of the Eighth Amendment, including

inadequate plumbing in his cell, unsanitary conditions in his cell and other areas, and the failure

to provide cleaning supplies to address the unsanitary conditions. Plaintiff claims that for nine

months he was housed in a cell in which the base of the toilet leaked every time it was used,

which caused flooding, and that he was not provided adequate supplies to address the problem.

He further claims that when he was eventually moved to a different cell in a different housing

unit, the walls of the cell appeared to have blood and dried feces on them. He claims that during

the several months he was there, he repeatedly requested supplies to clean his cell but received

adequate supplies on only one occasion. Plaintiff also claims that outdoor recreation cages and

an outer stairwell were covered with cat waste and pigeon droppings. He claims these

contaminants were then tracked back to his cell. Plaintiff claims he informed Defendants of

these issues but they failed to take any action to resolve the problems.

In Count II, Plaintiff alleged prison officials retaliated against him in violation of the

First Amendment for filing a previous federal civil rights lawsuit. The District Judge screened

the First Amended Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) on February 19, 2013.

(Doc. 9) The District Judge dismissed Count II for failure to state a claim, along with three

defendants, but ordered fourteen defendants to answer the allegations in Count I.1

 (Doc. 9 at 15)

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, along with declaratory and

injunctive relief. (Doc. 8 at 20)

II. Motion to Compel

In the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant Ryan to produce

documents responsive to his eight requests for production. Defendant’s Response to the Motion

to Compel indicates that, while Defendant objected to all of Plaintiff’s requests for various

reasons, Defendant produced 19 pages of documents, identified by Defendant as “Skinner’s

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 152 Filed 05/13/14 Page 2 of 11
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 Defendants’ counsel states that the ADC legal assistant who was primarily responsible

for obtaining documents for the past ten years passed away on January 15, 2014. (Doc. 116 at

8) As a result, according to counsel, a substantial backlog exists, thus causing the delay in

producing the eleven categories of documents. (Id.) The Court notes, however, that since filing

his Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendant supplemented his responses to Plaintiff’s

requests for production on April 9, 2014, though the Court does not know what documents were

included with the supplemental response. (Doc. 148) 

- 3 -

Detention Record,” in response to two of the requests. In response to a third request, Defendant

produced 238 pages identified as “Toilet Repair Work Orders.” (Doc. 116 at 9-32) Otherwise,

Defendant contends the responses are sufficient and the objections proper. Defendant, however,

also lists eleven categories of documents that counsel for Defendants “has been waiting for

some months now for ADC [Arizona Department of Corrections] to provide.”2

 (Doc. 116 at 7-8)

A. Legal Standards for Discovery

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . Relevant

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations

imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). These limitations reflect that, in addition

to being relevant, discovery must also be proportional to the issues and needs of the case. Kaiser

v. BMW of North America, LLC, 2013 WL 1856578, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2013) (citing

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)). Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides:

On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of

discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rules if it determines

that:

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can

be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less

burdensome, or less expensive;

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the

information by discovery in the action; or

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the

parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 152 Filed 05/13/14 Page 3 of 11
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 -

Thus, the court must “strike[ ] the proper balance between permitting relevant

discovery and limiting the scope and burdens of the discovery to what is proportional to the

case.” Kaiser, 2013 WL at *3. Moreover, “[b]road discretion is vested in the trial court to

permit or deny discovery, and its decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon

the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the

complaining litigant.” Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Goehring v.

Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1305 (9th Cir. 1996)).

B. Application

Plaintiff’s first request states:

RFP No. 1: “Budget Records: For the relevant time frame produce any and all ADC

budget records for ASPC - Florence and ASPC - Eyman including detailed documentation for

any line items related to plumbing repair, flooding incidents, plumbing maintenance, cleaning

supplies and equipment, inmates cleaning crews, and prophylactic supplies for dealing with

potential infectious bodily fluids or either infectious contaminants for Central and Browning

Units.” 

Defendant produced no documents in response to the request and objected by claiming

the request is “vague, burdensome, overbroad, irrelevant, argumentative, assumes facts not

established, requires speculation and conclusion, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” (Doc. 116 at 2) Defendant also contends that disclosing these documents

to an inmate would create a threat to the safe and orderly operation of the maximum security

prison units in which Plaintiff is housed. Defendant also claims Plaintiff “has available to him

all ADC policies and procedures that are not restricted from inmate possession at the prison

library or upon request to the prison library.” (Doc. 116 at 2) 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s first request for production is overly broad and unduly

burdensome. In addition, the scope of the request is disproportional to the issues in this case.

Plaintiff’s complaints of being housed in unsanitary cells and being denied adequate cleaning

supplies do not entitle him to “any and all” budget records for an unspecified time period for

two different prison facilities. Given the claims at issue in this case, the Court will not impose

upon Defendant the significant burden of searching for and producing the wide range of

documents responsive to this request.

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 152 Filed 05/13/14 Page 4 of 11
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 -

Plaintiff’s second request states:

RFP No. 2: “Sanitation Requirements: For the relevant time frame produce any and

all documents showing ADC policy, procedures, post orders, directives, standards and Arizona

law regarding ADC duties or requirements for maintaining adequate cell, recreation cage, and

outer staircase sanitation for Central and Browning Units including any and all work crew

records whether said crews were inmate crews or contractors.” 

Defendant produced 19 pages of documents in response to this request, referred to as

“Skinner’s Detention Record,” but still objected by claiming the request is “vague, burdensome,

overbroad, irrelevant, argumentative, assumes facts not established, requires speculation and

conclusion, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Doc. 116 at

2) Defendant also contends that disclosing these documents to an inmate would create a threat

to the safe and orderly operation of the maximum security prison units in which Plaintiff is

housed. Defendant also claims Plaintiff “has available to him all ADC policies and procedures

that are not restricted from inmate possession at the prison library or upon request to the prison

library.” (Doc. 116 at 2) 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s second request for production to be overly broad, unduly

burdensome, and disproportional to the issues in this case. The Court will not impose upon

Defendant the extraordinary burden of essentially producing every document in his possession,

including “work crew records” for two facilities, that has anything to do with cell, recreation

cage and staircase maintenance. 

Additionally, Defendant’s list of “Additional Documents Requested” includes

documents that may be responsive to Plaintiff’s second request for production. Plaintiff may,

therefore, have since received additional documents responsive to this request. Regardless, the

Court will not require Defendant to produce anything further in response to Plaintiff’s second

request for production.

Plaintiff’s third request states:

RFP No. 3: “Compliance records: For the relevant time frame produce any and all

records which show or are in any way evidence of available cleaning supplies and equipment,

as well as the supplies and equipment actually distributed both to Plaintiff and other prisoners

at Central and Browning Units including any and all daily activity schedules, individual inmate

detention records, cleaning equipment inventory and check out records, and correctional service

logs generated during the normal course of ADC operations at each of Plaintiffs housing

locations, any and all audit reports or records.” 

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 152 Filed 05/13/14 Page 5 of 11
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 -

Defendant produced 19 pages of documents in response to this request, referred to as

“Skinner’s Detention Record,” but still objected by claiming the request is “vague, burdensome,

overbroad, irrelevant, argumentative, assumes facts not established, requires speculation and

conclusion, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Doc. 116 at

3) Defendant also contends that disclosing these documents to an inmate would create a threat

to the safe and orderly operation of the maximum security prison units in which Plaintiff is

housed. Defendant also claims Plaintiff “has available to him all ADC policies and procedures

that are not restricted from inmate possession at the prison library or upon request to the prison

library.” (Doc. 116 at 3) 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s third request for production to be overly broad, unduly

burdensome, and disproportional to the issues in this case. Plaintiff is seeking “any and all”

records having anything to do with cleaning supplies at two separate facilities for an unspecified

period of time. Under the circumstances of this case, the Court will not impose upon Defendant

the extraordinary burden of producing the enormous number of documents that may be

responsive to the request.

Additionally, Defendant’s list of “Additional Documents Requested” includes

documents that may be responsive to Plaintiff’s third request for production. Plaintiff may,

therefore, have since received additional documents responsive to this request. Regardless, the

Court will not require Defendant to produce anything further in response to Plaintiff’s third

request for production.

Plaintiff’s fourth request states:

RFP No. 4: “Maintenance Records: For the relevant time frame produce all Central

Unit maintenance records regarding either the repair or replacement of toilets or toilet plumbing

including any and all work orders, repair or replacement costs or estimates, names of suppliers,

lists of all broken toilets or otherwise in need of repair or replacement, maintenance logs, and

an all documentation showing requests for funding to repair or replace toilets or plumbing.” 

Defendant produced 238 pages of documents in response to this request, referred to

as “Toilet Repair Work Orders,” but still objected by claiming the request is “vague,

burdensome, overbroad, irrelevant, argumentative, assumes facts not established, requires

speculation and conclusion, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 152 Filed 05/13/14 Page 6 of 11
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 -

(Doc. 116 at 3) Defendant also contends that disclosing these documents to an inmate would

create a threat to the safe and orderly operation of the maximum security prison units in which

Plaintiff is housed. Finally, Defendant claims the request is “beyond the bounds of this lawsuit

. . . .” (Doc. 116 at 3) 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s fourth request for production to be overly broad, unduly

burdensome, and disproportional to the issues in this case. Plaintiff’s claim that he was housed

in a cell with a leaky toilet for nine months does not entitle him to every record pertaining to

every toilet at the Central Unit for an unspecified period of time. Under the circumstances of

this case, the Court will not impose upon Defendant the extraordinary burden of producing the

enormous number of documents that may be responsive to the request.

Additionally, Defendant’s list of “Additional Documents Requested” includes

documents that may be responsive to Plaintiff’s fourth request for production. Plaintiff may,

therefore, have since received additional documents responsive to this request. Regardless, the

Court will not require Defendant to produce anything further in response to Plaintiff’s fourth

request for production.

Plaintiff’s fifth request states:

RFP No. 5: “Department Directives: For the relevant time frame produce any and all

Department Orders (DO), Director’s Instructions (DI), Institutional Orders (IO), Memorandums,

Directives or emails regarding employee conduct, performance, and professionalism including

ADC performance factors, ADC supervisory issues manual, DO 105 Information Reporting, DO

501 Employee Professionalism, Ethics and Conduct, DO 514 Performance Appraisal for

Correctional employees (PACE), DO 601 Administrative Investigation and Employee

Discipline, Town Hall Meeting dates and records of proceedings.” 

Defendant produced no documents in response to the request and objected by claiming

the request is “vague, burdensome, overbroad, irrelevant, argumentative, assumes facts not

established, requires speculation and conclusion, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” (Doc. 116 at 4) Defendant also contends that disclosing these documents

to an inmate would create a threat to the safe and orderly operation of the maximum security

prison units in which Plaintiff is housed. Defendant also claims Plaintiff “has available to him

all ADC policies and procedures that are not restricted from inmate possession at the prison

library or upon request to the prison library.” (Doc. 116 at 4)

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 152 Filed 05/13/14 Page 7 of 11
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 -

The Court finds Plaintiff’s fifth request for production is irrelevant, overly broad,

unduly burdensome, and disproportional to the issues in this case. Plaintiff’s one remaining

claim for relief does not come close to supporting a request for virtually every document ever

produced by ADC pertaining to employee conduct, performance, and professionalism. The

Court will, therefore, not impose upon Defendant the extraordinary burden of producing the

enormous number of documents that may be responsive to the request.

Plaintiff’s sixth request states:

RFP No. 6: “Plaintiff’s ADC Records: Produce and all documents regarding or

referencing Plaintiff, under the custody and control of any ADC employee at any ADC facility,

including incident reports, evaluations, cell block two (MAX Phase Program) screening and

removal records or reports, classification and disciplinary records, institutional inmate letters

and responses, incoming and outgoing correspondence, grievance records, interstate corrections

compact records, memorandums or emails, and master file.” 

Defendant produced no documents in response to the request and objected by claiming

the request is “vague, burdensome, overbroad, irrelevant, argumentative, assumes facts not

established, requires speculation and conclusion, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” (Doc. 116 at 4) Defendant also contends that disclosing these documents

to an inmate would create a threat to the safe and orderly operation of the maximum security

prison units in which Plaintiff is housed. Defendant also claims Plaintiff “has available to him

all ADC policies and procedures that are not restricted from inmate possession at the prison

library or upon request to the prison library.” (Doc. 116 at 4) Lastly, Defendant explains that

Plaintiff is provided with a copy of many of the documents he is requesting at the time they are

created.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s sixth request for production to be irrelevant, overly broad,

unduly burdensome, and disproportional to the issues in this case. Plaintiff’s one remaining

claim for relief based on unsanitary conditions in his cell and inadequate cleaning supplies does

not entitle him to every document ever generated by ADC that contains a reference to him.

Plaintiff has not adequately demonstrated that such records are relevant to his claim. The Court

will, therefore, not impose upon Defendant the burden of producing the documents that may be

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 152 Filed 05/13/14 Page 8 of 11
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 -

responsive to the request.

Additionally, Defendant’s list of “Additional Documents Requested” includes

documents that may be responsive to Plaintiff’s sixth request for production. Plaintiff may,

therefore, have since received additional documents responsive to this request. Regardless, the

Court will not require Defendant to produce anything further in response to Plaintiff’s sixth

request for production.

Plaintiff’s seventh request states:

RFP No. 7: “Defendant Disciplinary Records: Produce any and all documents

regarding the employee disciplinary and criminal histories known to exist under each

Defendants’ name and employee identification number (EIN) including PACE records,

reprimands, suspensions, and terminations or any other administrative or criminal action taken

against them.” 

Defendant produced no documents in response to the request and objected by claiming

the request is “vague, burdensome, overbroad, irrelevant, argumentative, assumes facts not

established, requires speculation and conclusion, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” (Doc. 116 at 4-5) Defendant also contends that disclosing these

documents to an inmate would create a threat to the safe and orderly operation of the maximum

security prison units in which Plaintiff is housed.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s seventh request for production is irrelevant and

disproportional to the issues in this case. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants acted with deliberate

indifference to safety by failing to adequately respond to his complaints of unsanitary conditions

in his cell and inadequate cleaning supplies does not entitle him to each Defendant’s

disciplinary record, including their criminal histories. The Court finds such records are not

relevant to Defendants’ alleged conduct in this action. The Court will, therefore, not require

Defendant to produce documents responsive to this request.

Plaintiff’s eighth request states:

RFP No. 8: “Any and all documentation which supports any defense which may be

raised at trial including ADC count sheets with the names, ADC numbers, and housing locations

of each inmate whether named or referenced individually or as a group in any defense regarding

who was not given cell or cleaning supplies and equipment in accordance with ADC policy or

custom, any and all documents specific to each inmate evidence as to the reason(s) they were

not permitted to receive cleaning supplies and equipment.” 

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 152 Filed 05/13/14 Page 9 of 11
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 -

Defendant produced no documents in response to the request and objected by claiming

the request is “vague, burdensome, overbroad, irrelevant, argumentative, assumes facts not

established, requires speculation and conclusion, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” (Doc. 116 at 5) Defendant also contends that disclosing these documents

to an inmate would create a threat to the safe and orderly operation of the maximum security

prison units in which Plaintiff is housed.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s eighth request for production is vague, overly broad,

unduly burdensome, and disproportional to the issues in this case. Plaintiff will be entitled to

copies of any documents Defendants intend to use at trial in support of any defenses they raise.

He is not, however, entitled to the broad scope of documents he seeks in this request. The Court

will not not impose upon Defendant the significant burden of producing all the documents that

may be responsive to Plaintiff’s request.

Additionally, Defendant’s list of “Additional Documents Requested” includes

documents that may be responsive to Plaintiff’s eighth request for production. Plaintiff may,

therefore, have since received additional documents responsive to this request. Regardless, the

Court will not require Defendant to produce anything further in response to Plaintiff’s eighth

request for production.

C. Motion to Compel - Conclusion

Based on the foregoing discussion, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, doc. 102,

will be denied.

II. Motion for Sanctions

Next, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants’ counsel based on counsel’s alleged

misrepresentation, in a previous filing, that Plaintiff had been “convicted of multiple murders

both inside and outside of prison.” (See Doc. 110 at 1-2) Based on that alleged fact, counsel said

“the Court should not lend any credence to [Plaintiff’s] allegations.” (Id.) Counsel also attached

a footnote to the statement referencing a website that presumably supported the assertion. 

As Plaintiff accurately points out, the information cited by Defendants’ counsel does

not indicate Plaintiff has been convicted of multiple murders. It appears from the information

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 152 Filed 05/13/14 Page 10 of 11
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 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/430/483/505500 (last accessed

May 12, 2014).

- 11 -

cited that Plaintiff is serving a life sentence for a murder conviction in Massachusetts.3 While

in prison, Plaintiff was again charged with murder after he was involved in a fight started by

another inmate which resulted in the inmate’s death. Plaintiff, however, was acquitted of the

charge following a jury trial.

Although counsel’s assertion was inaccurate and reckless, the Court exercises its

discretion and declines to impose sanctions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(1) (providing that the court

“may” impose an appropriate sanction for a violation of Rule 11(b)). This civil rights action

involves allegations by Plaintiff that, while incarcerated in the Arizona Department of

Corrections, Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his health and safety in violation

of the Eighth Amendment. The circumstances that led to Plaintiff’s incarceration have no

bearing on the Court’s rulings in this matter. Counsel’s assertion regarding Plaintiff’s criminal

history has no relevance to the issues in this case and it was disregarded by the Court. Plaintiff’s

motion for sanctions will, therefore, be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, doc. 102, and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, doc. 115, are DENIED.

DATED this 13th day of May, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-01729-SMM-ESW Document 152 Filed 05/13/14 Page 11 of 11