Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00438/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00438-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

THOMAS D. ARTHUR, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CASE NO. 2:11-cv-438-WKW 

 ) (WO – Do Not Publish) 

WALTER MYERS, et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

DISCOVERY ORDER 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 This § 1983 lawsuit has been pending for over four years. By the time this 

case was reassigned to the undersigned in August 2014, the Eleventh Circuit had 

resolved Arthur’s appeal of the dismissal of his complaint, the former judge to whom 

this case was assigned had conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing on Arthur’s 

Eighth Amendment method-of-execution and Fourteenth Amendment equal 

protection claims, years of discovery had been conducted on the use of pentobarbital 

as the first drug in Alabama’s three-drug lethal injection protocol and the 

performance of the consciousness assessment, and summary judgment had been 

resolved with respect to Arthur’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. All 

that was left to finally resolve Arthur’s claims, at least before the district court, was 

for the undersigned to hold a final hearing and to enter a memorandum opinion and 

Case 2:11-cv-00438-WKW-TFM Document 259 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 10
2 

final judgment on Arthur’s claims. 

 However, before a final hearing could be held, the State announced in 

September 2014 that it had changed its lethal injection protocol to substitute 

midazolam hydrochloride for pentobarbital as the first drug, and rocuronium 

bromide for pancuronium bromide as the second drug in its three-drug cocktail. 

(Doc. # 185.) The court gave Arthur leave to amend his complaint to reflect the 

protocol changes, and on January 7, 2015, Arthur filed his second amended 

complaint. (Docs. # 195, 197.) The court then placed this case on a shortened 

schedule in an effort to complete any remaining discovery and a final hearing by 

May 2015. (Doc. # 202.) Nonetheless, before a final hearing could be held, the 

court elected to stay this case (and the six other § 1983 lethal injection challenges 

pending before it) until after the United States Supreme Court decided Glossip v. 

Gross.

1

 (Doc. # 241.) 

Glossip was decided on June 29, 2015, and the stay of this case was 

subsequently lifted. (Doc. # 246.) With substantial discovery already having been 

conducted on the use of midazolam in the context of Alabama’s three-drug lethal 

injection protocol,2

 and with discovery appearing to be complete with respect to 

 

1

 Glossip involved a § 1983 challenge to Oklahoma’s three-drug lethal injection protocol, which 

is similar to Alabama’s, and specifically addressed the pleading and proof standards for Eighth 

Amendment method-of-execution challenges similar to the one presented here. 

2

 When litigating Arthur’s February 2015 Emergency Motion for a Stay of Execution, both Arthur 

and the State submitted affidavits from various experts opining to the efficacy of midazolam when 

Case 2:11-cv-00438-WKW-TFM Document 259 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 10
3 

Arthur’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim (see Doc. # 205), the court 

ordered Arthur to show cause as to what remaining discovery, if any, needed to be 

completed before a final hearing could be held. (Doc. # 247.) Arthur responded 

with a “Request for Discovery,” which the court construes as a motion to compel.3

 

(Doc. # 248.) The State filed a response in opposition on August 5, 2015 (Doc. 

# 250), and Arthur filed a reply on August 12, 2015 (Doc. # 255). Having reviewed 

these filings, it is clear that, despite the court’s prior entry of a general discovery 

order (see Doc. # 207), which remains applicable to discovery in this case unless 

modified herein, the parties have reached an impasse on multiple discovery issues. 

Thus, this order resolves the discovery disputes to facilitate both a condensed and 

efficient discovery process. 

II. DISCUSSION 

 Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits discovery “of any 

information sought if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence.” Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1189 (11th 

Cir. 2013). However, this is not a typical case where discovery, which has been 

 

used in the context of Alabama’s three-drug lethal injection protocol. (See Docs. # 216, 218, 221, 

223.) Indeed, in Arthur’s recently filed request for discovery, even he recognized that, despite 

“Defendants’ refusal to provide relevant documents and information, Mr. Arthur has presented 

substantial expert testimony in support of his Eighth Amendment claim.” (Doc. # 248, n.1.) 

3

 Arthur filed a motion to compel shortly before the case was stayed, but in light of the entry of a 

stay, the motion was denied with leave to refile. (Docs. # 239, 241.) 

Case 2:11-cv-00438-WKW-TFM Document 259 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 10
4 

ongoing for years, will be permitted to plod along a leisurely, and thus protracted, 

course. Almost a year has passed since Alabama changed the first drug in its 

three-drug lethal injection protocol from pentobarbital to midazolam. And while 

Glossip made clear that for an inmate to state a viable Eighth Amendment 

method-of-execution claim, he must plead a known and available alternative method 

of execution that entails a lesser risk of pain, Arthur has always had the burden of 

proving this element at the end of the day, even prior to Glossip. Compare Glossip 

v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2739 (2015), with Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 52 (2008). 

 All this to say that, based on prior pleadings and filings and the procedural 

posture of this case, the court is unsure what additional discovery remains to be 

completed, apart from expert depositions and, perhaps, supplementation of expert 

reports. Indeed, counsel for the State, as officers of the court subject to Rule 11 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed a document representing therein that 

“[t]he State has no additional written discovery pertaining to Arthur’s motion. 

Arthur has been provided with a redacted copy of the State’s lethal injection protocol 

and with other discovery throughout this litigation, and the State has nothing else of 

relevance to disclose.” (Doc. # 250.) The court cannot compel the State to produce 

information in response to Arthur’s discovery requests when, according to the State, 

there is nothing responsive left to produce. 

Case 2:11-cv-00438-WKW-TFM Document 259 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 10
5 

 Moreover, much of the discovery that Arthur seeks is not discoverable, as it 

is overly broad and/or irrelevant to his claims. Discovery will not be permitted on 

the following topics: 

 1. The State’s decision to change or to substitute the first drug used in 

Alabama’s lethal injection protocol from pentobarbital to midazolam and the second 

drug from pancuronium bromide to rocuronium bromide, including the production 

of an unreacted copy of the current protocol, as well as documents, communications, 

and/or other information relating to these changes. Alabama has selected the drugs 

and dosages to use in its lethal injection protocol, and the reasoning behind those 

decisions is irrelevant to either of Arthur’s claims. Moreover, the State has given a 

sufficient explanation of its reasoning for selecting midazolam in its response to 

Arthur’s discovery request. (See Doc. # 250, p. 1.) 

 2. The State’s basis for selecting a 500 mg dose of midazolam, including 

any scientific or medical evidence relied upon in selecting the drug and its dosage. 

Again, Alabama has selected the drugs and dosages to use in its lethal injection 

protocol, and the reasoning behind those decisions is irrelevant to Arthur’s claims. 

In any event, the State has given a sufficient explanation of its reasoning for its 

selection of this drug at this dosage in its response to Arthur’s discovery request. 

(See Doc. # 250, p. 1.) 

 3. The amount and the specific expiration dates of the midazolam and 

Case 2:11-cv-00438-WKW-TFM Document 259 Filed 08/28/15 Page 5 of 10
6 

rocuronium bromide in the State’s possession. The State has informed Arthur that 

its supply of those two drugs is currently unexpired. If that response changes before 

Arthur’s next scheduled execution date, the State will be obligated to supplement 

this response in accordance with its general duty to supplement under Rule 26 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 4. Similarities and differences between Alabama’s and Oklahoma’s lethal 

injection protocols. To the extent this request seeks relevant discovery, a redacted 

copy of Alabama’s current protocol has already been produced to Arthur, and 

Oklahoma’s current protocol is publicly available for comparison. 

 5. The identity of any drug source or supplier used or contacted by the 

Alabama Department of Corrections. This includes any attempts or efforts by the 

State to obtain any drug, including pentobarbital, from (i) a compounding pharmacy, 

(ii) a manufacturer, retailer, wholesaler, distributor, or other source or supplier, or 

(iii) any agency, institution, or party, including departments of corrections of other 

states. This request is overly broad and seeks production of highly sensitive 

information. Arthur can obtain this information through his own investigative 

efforts or his experts, and the fact that other states have opted to use pentobarbital 

but have not disclosed their drug sources does not entitle Arthur to discover 

information about Alabama’s drug sources. 

 6. Any alternative method of execution identified, considered, or 

Case 2:11-cv-00438-WKW-TFM Document 259 Filed 08/28/15 Page 6 of 10
7 

contemplated for use or potential use in Alabama, including a one-drug lethal 

injection protocol, a firing squad, or the electric chair. Not only is this request overly 

broad, but Arthur is not entitled “to discover what alternatives Alabama has 

considered and why they were rejected or not implemented in favor of the current 

protocol.” (Doc. # 248, p. 7.) 

 7. Documents and communications concerning executions in other states 

using midazolam, including those in Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio and Arizona. Not 

only is this information not relevant to Arthur’s claims, much of the information 

about these executions in other states is publicly available. 

 8. The medical equipment used to administer midazolam, including the 

gauge of needles and the diameter and length of delivery tubes, as well as flow and 

injection rates of any substances to be administered during Arthur’s execution. To 

the extent this information is available to the State, the State has already produced 

to Arthur the information sought by this discovery request. 

 Notwithstanding the above, Arthur is entitled to conduct discovery with 

respect to some of the topics he identifies in his motion. Discovery will be permitted 

on the following: 

 1. A description of the midazolam and the rocuronium bromide the 

Alabama Department of Corrections will use in Arthur’s execution, including the 

Case 2:11-cv-00438-WKW-TFM Document 259 Filed 08/28/15 Page 7 of 10
8 

components in the solution, the precise volumes/amounts of each component, and 

the precise ratios of each component. 

 2. The appropriate midazolam package insert on which Arthur’s expert(s) 

should rely (whether that would be the Becton Dickinson package insert or the Akorn 

package insert). 

 3. The substitution of midazolam with pentobarbital, and the medical and 

scientific similarities and differences between midazolam and pentobarbital and the 

impact of switching between these two drugs. 

 4. The efficacy of midazolam, including whether midazolam will 

anesthetize an inmate or render him unconscious prior to the administration of the 

second and third drugs in Alabama’s lethal injection protocol. 

 5. The availability or unavailability of pentobarbital or compounded 

pentobarbital to the Alabama Department of Corrections. However, the scope of 

this discovery shall not extend to “any other available alternative drug for use or 

potential use” in Alabama’s protocol, as Arthur has identified pentobarbital as his 

alternative method of execution. While the State may generally describe its efforts 

to obtain pentobarbital, including whether the pentobarbital was obtained and, if not, 

the reasons why it could not be obtained, the scope of this discovery shall not extend 

to the identity of any suppliers, pharmacies, manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, 

distributors, or other sources or suppliers, or any agency, institution, or party, 

Case 2:11-cv-00438-WKW-TFM Document 259 Filed 08/28/15 Page 8 of 10
9 

including departments of corrections of other states, from which it has or has 

attempted to obtain pentobarbital. 

 Again, the court notes that the State has indicated that it has already produced 

any responsive materials in has in its possession, custody, or control with respect to 

Arthur’s discovery requests. However, even though the State has indicated that is 

has no additional written discovery to produce with respect to Arthur’s discovery 

requests, Arthur can conduct discovery on the above topics via expert and/or Rule 

30(b)(6) depositions. Finally, the parties are reminded of their duty to supplement 

under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, Arthur’s motion (Doc. # 248) is GRANTED IN 

PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth above. Discovery in this matter, 

including expert discovery (which is inclusive of expert depositions), shall be 

completed on or before November 15, 2015. The court will not entertain any 

discovery-related motions filed after that date, unless exceptional good cause is 

shown. 

 The parties are directed to plan accordingly, including the avoidance of 

last-minute discovery disputes. A detailed scheduling order is forthcoming and will 

again place this case on a truncated schedule so that Arthur’s claims can be resolved 

as efficiently as possible. The court further notes that it has already taken notice of 

Case 2:11-cv-00438-WKW-TFM Document 259 Filed 08/28/15 Page 9 of 10
10 

the parties’ Joint Stipulation (Doc. # 205) and ordered that the previous testimonies 

identified therein that were provided in this case (either during depositions and/or 

the evidentiary hearing October 18−19, 2012) with respect to Alabama’s 

consciousness assessment are binding, applicable, and admissible for purposes of 

litigating the claims in Arthur’s second amended complaint. Any discovery that is 

repetitive or cumulative of this testimony shall not be conducted. Finally, the 

discovery contemplated by this order is subject to the Agreed Confidentiality Order 

(Doc. # 74) on record with the court. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall 

govern unless modified by this or any other order of the court. 

 DONE this 28th day of August, 2015. 

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00438-WKW-TFM Document 259 Filed 08/28/15 Page 10 of 10