Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01864/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01864-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Paul Anthony Robledo, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Nicole Taylor, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-01864-PHX-JAT (DMF)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE: 

 Before the Court is the matter of sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 for Defendant’s 

failure to answer propounded interrogatories after the Court expressly ordered Defendant 

to answer the interrogatories. Both of the parties, Plaintiff pro se and Defendant 

appearing in person and through her counsel, have had opportunity to address the Court 

in writing and at a hearing on whether and what sanctions would be appropriate. 

Because a Magistrate Judge may not issue sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 in a case 

referred for pretrial matters in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), see LRCiv 

72.2(a)(1), this report and recommendation follows. 

I. Recommended Sanction 

As explained below, undersigned recommends that, as sanction under 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, the Court strike the Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 152), the Objection to Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts and 

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 193 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 9
- 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 

Supplemental Statement of Facts (Doc. 153), and the Sealed Exhibits to the Supplemental 

Statement of Facts (Doc. 157). Thus, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment would 

be decided based on Defendant’s Motion and Supporting Statement of Facts (Docs. 89, 

90) and Plaintiff’s replacement Response and Supporting Statement of Facts (Docs. 145, 

146).1 This sanction also moots Plaintiff’s request to file a controverting statement of 

facts in opposition to the Defendant’s reply/supplemental statement of facts (see Docs. 

168, 172, 187), and makes decision on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment a 

more streamlined process. 

II. Background and Analysis 

A. The Lawsuit and Defendant’s MSJ 

Defendant Nicole Taylor, Ph.D, (“Defendant Taylor”) was employed and worked 

at ASPC-Lewis as a psychologist (Doc. 89 at 1-2). Plaintiff is a prisoner who filed a pro 

se civil rights lawsuit against Defendant claiming deliberate indifference to his mental 

health needs (Doc. 16; Doc. 89 at 1-2). On May 27, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for 

summary judgment and an accompanying statement of facts (“MSJ”) (Docs. 89, 90). The 

MSJ included publicly filed excerpts of Plaintiff’s mental health records that had not 

previously been produced to him (see Docs. 89, 90, Doc. 98 at 2 lines 18-23; Doc. 120). 

Plaintiff filed responsive paperwork to Defendants’ MSJ on July 21, 2016 (Docs. 116, 

117). The Court later granted leave for Plaintiff to file replacement responsive 

paperwork to Defendant’s MSJ on or before September 20, 2016, to allow Plaintiff time 

to receive and review all previously unproduced mental health records in Defendant’s 

and/or her counsel’s possession (Doc. 120 at 4; Doc. 124). 

B. The Interrogatories 

On August 4, 2016, after the discovery deadline had passed (Doc. 54) and after 

Plaintiff had received the first of his mental health records the Court had ordered 

 

1

 The basis of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is that “Plaintiff has 

not and cannot present any evidence to support his claims” (Doc. 89 at p. 1, lines 17-28). Plaintiff was given leave to file replacement responsive papers because he had not had access to his own mental health records in Defendant and/or her counsel’s possession at the time of filing his original responsive papers (see Docs. 120, 124). 

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 193 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 9
- 3 - 

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 

Defendant and her counsel to produce (Doc. 120, 128), Plaintiff filed a Motion for 

Interrogatories (Doc. 125). The interrogatories for which Plaintiff sought this Court’s 

permission were concisely aimed at defining terms in his mental health records that had 

been produced to him after the discovery deadline for most other matters (see Doc. 98 at 

2 lines 18-23; Doc. 120; Doc. 124; Doc. 128) and before filing his new responsive papers 

to Defendant’s MSJ. For example, Plaintiff requested the meaning of several diagnosis 

codes referenced in his mental health records (Doc. 125 at 4). 

A few days later, on August 8, 2016, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Interrogatories at Doc. 125 (Doc. 129). The two sentence response said, 

“Defendant Nicole Taylor (‘Defendant Taylor’) responds as follows to Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Interrogatories (‘Motion’) [Doc. 25]. Defendant Taylor will timely respond to 

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories as drafted in Doc. 125 without waiving any objection thereto” 

(Doc. 129). Therefore, on August 9, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Interrogatories (Doc. 125) and “ORDERED that Defendant timely answer Plaintiff’s 

interrogatories in Doc. 25 on or before September 6, 2016, without waiving any objection 

thereto” (emphasis added) (Doc. 130). 

 C. The Motion to Compel 

Attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (Doc. 144) 

are “Defendant Nicole Taylor’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories” which were 

mailed to Plaintiff on September 5, 2016 (Doc. 144 at 5-9; see also Doc. 139). The 

September 5, 2016, mailing to Plaintiff presented no actual answers to the interrogatories 

in the document labeled “Defendant Nicole Taylor’s Responses to Plaintiff’s 

Interrogatories”. Id. Instead of answering the interrogatories as the Court ordered on 

August 9, 2016, Defendant wrote, adding her own emphasis: 

OBJECTION. Plaintiff specifically notes he “submits [his Interrogatory] to 

Defendant Taylor to be answered by the FHA at ASPC-Lewis [where he is 

presently incarcerated] or to any other qualified individual...” See Doc. 

125, p. 2, ll. 6-9 (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s Interrogatory therefore 

requests a response from an individual other than a party to this lawsuit, 

i.e., Defendant Taylor. Plaintiff fails to cite any authority that requires a 

party to respond to a discovery request that is not directed to any party in a 

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 193 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 9
- 4 - 

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 

lawsuit. Rule 33 allows a party to serve on any other party a request for 

written interrogatories. Plaintiff’s discovery request is not directed to any

party as required under Rule 33. As such, no response from Defendant 

Taylor is warranted. To the extent Plaintiff seeks a Response from FHA or 

any other qualified individual, he may utilize the Health Needs Request 

forms, which are available to him at ASPC-Lewis. 

Defendant steadfastly maintained the position in her response to the motion to 

compel that the above language fulfilled her obligations under the discovery rules and 

this Court’s Order (Doc. 148). Defendant asserted that Plaintiff’s Interrogatories “were 

not directed to Defendant Taylor” such that “responses from Defendant Taylor were not 

warranted” (Doc. 148 at 2). This position was not only a distortion of Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Interrogatories (Doc. 125), it ignored Defendant’s own response to that motion 

agreeing “Defendant Taylor will timely respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories as drafted in 

Doc. 125 without waiving any objection thereto” (Doc. 129), and it ignored this Court’s 

Order of August 9, 2016, ordering Defendant Taylor to answer the interrogatories (Doc. 

130). 

The language relied upon by Defendant and her counsel for the non-responsive 

objection to each and all of the interrogatories was not even part of the interrogatories 

which the Court ordered Defendant Taylor to answer. Rather, the language relied on by 

Defendant and her counsel to try to avoid Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and this Court’s 

Order came from the motion for the interrogatories itself as part of Plaintiff’s request to 

have the answers to the Interrogatories by August 25, 2016 (Doc. 125 at 2), rather than 

the usual 30 day response period (to September 6, 2016, the day after Labor Day), as the 

Court later ordered at Doc. 130. 

On page one of the motion portion of Doc. 125, Plaintiff began to list why the 

interrogatories were needed quickly and even though the discovery deadline had passed. 

The reasons extended to page two, including the language upon which Defendant based 

her entire reason for not answering the interrogatories that she was expressly ordered by 

this Court to answer. In Plaintiff’s motion at Doc. 125 at page two, Plaintiff appeared to 

be referencing the previous position of Defendant that she should not produce to Plaintiff 

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 193 Filed 11/16/16 Page 4 of 9
- 5 - 

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 

his mental health records unless, during review of his records, he had a mental health 

professional present from the institution in which he was housed (see, e.g., Docs. 58, 59, 

60, 61, 89, 90, 98, 107, 120). 

Even if the Court’s Order had not been clear and unambiguous that Defendant 

Taylor was required to answer the interrogatories, the language Defendant relied upon 

from Plaintiff’s motion was not part of the actual interrogatories. The language was 

separated from the actual interrogatories not only by the date and signature line of the 

motion but also was followed a full page cover sheet stating “Interrogatories” between 

the motion and the list of interrogatories (see Doc. 125 at 3, 4). The interrogatories 

themselves were clearly set forth on page four separate from the motion at pages one to 

two, were simply and separately numbered non consecutively to the numbering in the 

motion, and contained no language about the possibility or desire that a non-party answer 

the interrogatories (see Doc. 125). 

In any event, the Court’s Order did not include the language on which Defendant 

based her failure to answer the interrogatories. The Court’s Order was plain, simple, and 

clear that “Defendant timely answer Plaintiff’s interrogatories in Doc. 125 on or before 

September 6, 2016” (Doc. 130). Thus, by Order dated September 29, 2016 (Doc. 150), 

the Court found Defendant’s responses to the interrogatories inadequate and in violation 

of this Court’s August 9, 2016, Order directing that “Defendant timely answer Plaintiff’s 

Interrogatories in Doc. 125” (Doc. 130). The Court again ordered Defendant to answer 

the interrogatories and include a copy of such answers with the Notice of Service, which 

Defendant did (see Docs. 150, 162-1). 

Given the timing of the original answers Plaintiff had to (and did) file his 

replacement responsive papers to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 89, 

90) on September 15, 2016, without the benefit of the answers to the interrogatories as 

ordered by the Court on August 9, 2016 (Docs. 145, 146). Thereafter, Defendant filed a 

reply and a supplemental statement of facts in support of her motion for summary 

judgment (Docs. 152, 153, 155), and Plaintiff seeks to file controverting statement of 

facts to Defendant’s supplemental statement of facts (see Docs. 168, 172, 187). 

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 193 Filed 11/16/16 Page 5 of 9
- 6 - 

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 

D. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”) prohibit the conduct in 

which Defendant and/her counsel engaged. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii) provides that 

the Court may order sanctions if “a party, after being properly served with interrogatories 

under Rule 33 fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response.” F.R.Civ.P. 

37(a)(4) provides that “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be 

treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d)(2) states that a 

“failure described in Rule 37(d)(1)(A) is not excused on the ground that the discovery 

sought was objectionable, unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for a 

protective order under Rule 26(c).” Possible sanctions for such conduct includes the 

sanctions set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i) - (iv), in addition to reasonable 

expenses. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d)(3). Such sanctions may include, “prohibiting the 

disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses or from 

introducing designated matters in evidence,” “striking pleadings in whole or in part,” and 

“rendering a defalult judgment against the disobedient party.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 

37(b)(2)(A)(ii) - (iv). 

Because Defendant and her counsel provided evasive and incomplete responses to 

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories at Doc. 125 at page 4 after being expressly ordered by this 

Court to answer the interrogatories (Doc. 130), the Court may impose sanctions under 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. As instructed by the Court, Plaintiff pro per and Defendant through 

counsel filed memoranda regarding whether and what sanctions were appropriate for 

Defendant’s failure to answer the interrogatories (Docs. 167, 170), and the Court set a 

hearing with notice that the only sanctions to be considered were discovery sanctions 

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 (Docs. 173, 174). On November 14, 2016, the hearing was held 

with the parties and defense counsel in a courtroom in the Phoenix location of the United 

States District Court with a VTC connection to the courtroom in Flagstaff. 

E. Recommended Sanction 

In Plaintiff’s memorandum regarding possible sanctions, Plaintiff expressed a 

desire not to again file replacement papers in opposition to Defendant’s motion for 

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 193 Filed 11/16/16 Page 6 of 9
- 7 - 

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 

summary judgment even though he now has the answers to the interrogatories (Doc. 167 

at p. 3, lines 4-8). Plaintiff requests that the Court strike Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment (Docs. 89, 90) as sanction. Defendant seeks no sanction at all, 

arguing that her professional ethical obligations and ADOC policy prevented her from 

answering the interrogatories (Doc. 170). Defendant did not raise such arguments in 

opposition to the motion for interrogatories, in any motion for reconsideration of this 

Court’s Order that Defendant answer the interrogatories, in any appeal to the District 

Judge of this Court’s Order, or even in response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

Noteworthy is that Defendant appears to have adequately answered the interrogatories on 

October 6, 2016 (Doc. 162) without running afoul of her ethical obligations. 

Further, the Court is not persuaded that an ADOC policy about inmate access to 

mental health records excuses Defendant’s failure to answer the interrogatories when and 

as originally ordered. First, the ADOC policy is a general policy applicable to review by 

inmates of their mental health records, and it does not specifically address procedures 

when litigation arises. Further, in July, 2016, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s 

various motions stating, in part: “[S]hould the Court deem an Order permitting the release 

of Plaintiff’s complete mental health file is proper despite DO 1104.02, Defendant Taylor 

will comply consistent with that Order” (Doc. 119 at 3). In July, 2016, the Court did in 

fact issue an Order that mental health information be released directly from Defendant’s 

counsel to Plaintiff without a prison mental health professional present during review as 

would be required under DO 1104.02 (Doc. 120). As set forth in the Court’s analysis in 

the Order (Doc. 120), the Court must be able to manage the litigation before it. 

Managing the litigation is the Court’s role, not the ADOC’s role directly or through 

policies. Further, it is noteworthy that when it suited Defendant’s litigation purpose to 

publicly file some of Plaintiff’s mental health records as an attachment to the statement of 

facts in support of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in May, 2016 (Doc. 90), 

Defendant’s counsel mailed the documents directly to Plaintiff without adherence to DO 

1104.02 (see Doc. 120). 

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 193 Filed 11/16/16 Page 7 of 9
- 8 - 

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 

The Court is also not persuaded that the conduct warrants striking of Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment papers. This seems too severe of a sanction. While 

Defendant’s conduct around the interrogatories impeded Plaintiff’s ability to have all the 

information he expected to have to respond to the motion for summary judgment, he is 

not asking for another chance to file responsive papers. Further, because the dispositive 

motion deadline has passed (see Doc. 54), striking Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment papers would ensure that the case would proceed to trial despite that the issue 

argued in the summary judgment is that Plaintiff does not have adequate evidence to 

support his claims in the lawsuit. Striking the reply papers in support of Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment is a more measured and appropriate sanction. It still 

allows possible decision of the case on dispositive motion, but eliminates incentive to 

violate court orders and rules in the future. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court strike the Reply in Support 

of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 152), the Objection to Plaintiff’s 

Statement of Facts and Supplemental Statement of Facts (Doc. 153), and the Sealed 

Exhibits to the Supplemental Statement of Facts (Doc. 157). Thus, Defendant’s pending 

Motion for Summary Judgment would be decided based on the Motion and Supporting 

Statement of Facts (Docs. 89, 90) and Plaintiff’s replacement Response and Supporting 

Statement of Facts (Docs. 145, 146). 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of 

time to file controverting statement of facts to Defendant’s supplemental statement of 

facts (Docs. 168, 187) be denied as moot. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. 

 Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 193 Filed 11/16/16 Page 8 of 9
- 9 - 

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 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) 

pages in length. 

 Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate 

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment 

entered pursuant to the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 

 Dated this 15th day of November, 2016. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Document 193 Filed 11/16/16 Page 9 of 9