Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01339/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01339-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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

Kenneth W. Reed, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Karen Barcklay et al, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1339-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Kenneth Reed’s interlocutory appeal of

Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s Order of June 22, 2012. (Doc. 106). The Court now rules on the

appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Yuma in San Luis, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint in the Superior

Court of Yuma County, Arizona, seeking redress pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 6,

2011, Defendant Chenail filed a Notice of Removal. This Court concluded that removal was

appropriate, dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint for failure to state a claim, and gave him

leave to amend. After Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, further pretrial

proceedings were assigned to Magistrate Judge Irwin, and subsequently to Magistrate Judge

Metcalf.

Magistrate Judge Metcalf issued an Order on June 22, 2012, resolving a discovery

Case 2:11-cv-01339-JAT Document 107 Filed 07/19/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

dispute that had arisen regarding Plaintiff’s medical records. (Doc. 100). Essentially, Plaintiff

sought to have his medical records released directly to him, while Defendants sought to

compel the release of the records to them to enable redactions for security and privacy

reasons. Id. at 5-6. The Magistrate Judge ordered that Plaintiff’s medical records be produced

to Defendants, and that Defendants provide Plaintiff a copy (with any redactions noted and

explained) within fourteen days of that release. Id. at 14. The Order also provided for

protection of those documents from disclosure. Id. at 13-14.

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s: (1) ruling on alleged noncompliance with

an allegedly nonexistent discovery request; (2) finding of substantial justification for the

Defendant’s proposed course of discovery; (3) adoption of Defendants’ proposed course of

discovery; and (4) alleged denial of the Rule 34 discovery process. (Doc. 106 at 4-5). The

Court now rules on Plaintiff’s objections.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-639, “distinguishes between

nondispositive matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and dispositive matters heard

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).” United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 968

(9th Cir. 2001). “Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district judge may designate a magistrate

judge to hear any nondispositive pretrial matter pending before the court.” Estate of Connors

v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis in original). Regarding

nondispositive pretrial matters heard by a magistrate judge, the Federal Magistrate Act

provides, in pertinent part:

[A] judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter

pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment

on the pleadings, for summary judgment, . . . to dismiss for failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action.

A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this

subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate’s order is clearly

erroneous or contrary to law.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d at 967. The Court will thus review

the Magistrate Judge’s decisions of law de novo, and decisions of fact only for clear error.

Case 2:11-cv-01339-JAT Document 107 Filed 07/19/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff first argues that the Magistrate Judge ordered discovery of documents that

were never actually requested by Defendants. However, as the Magistrate Judge’s Order

states, Defendants requested “all documents relied on in responding to discovery, or relevant

or likely lead to relevant evidence, and records on the claims maintained by Plaintiff.” (Doc.

100 at 2) (quoting Doc. 71 at Exhibit 1). Although not explicit, this request includes

Plaintiff’s medical records. Further, in a letter to Defendant, Plaintiff also indicated he would

“consider [Defendants] letter of December 21, 2011 as a request for production of

[Plaintiff’s] medical records.” Id. (quoting Doc. 71, Exhibit 2, Letter 1/14/12.). Accordingly,

this objection is without merit.

Plaintiff next objects to the finding of substantial justification for ordering an

alternative discovery process. (Doc. 106 at 4). Plaintiff argues that this finding is

unsupported. Id. However, the Magistrate Judge did discuss the justifications for his Order.

(Doc. 100 at 7-9 (discussing privacy concerns), 9-10 (discussing security concerns)). Based

on these justifications, the Magistrate Judge found the alternative discovery process proper,

and this Court finds no clear error in his reliance upon these justifications.

Plaintiff finally objects that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure entitle him to direct

production of his records, and that the terms of discovery adopted by the Magistrate Judge

are unfair. (Doc. 106 at 4-5). The Magistrate Judge addressed this argument, stating that the

discovery rules allow for flexibility in the production of the documents, and that the Court

has broad authority to limit discovery. (Doc. 100 at 11) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C),

34(b)(2)(E)(i)). The Magistrate Judge correctly stated the law. See In re Anonymous Online

Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1176 (9th Cir. 2011) (“district court has wide latitude in controlling

discovery and . . . decisions governing discovery are highly fact-intensive”) (internal

citations omitted). As discussed above, there is no clear error in his finding that the present

discovery dispute warranted the exercise of that flexibility. Nor is there any clear error in the

course of discovery ordered by the Magistrate Judge, given that Plaintiff has presented no

evidence to suggest that Defendants will not honestly participate in the discovery process.

Case 2:11-cv-01339-JAT Document 107 Filed 07/19/12 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED affirming Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s Order of June 22, 2012.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that and Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Order Dated June 22, 2012 (Doc. 106) is denied.

DATED this 19th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01339-JAT Document 107 Filed 07/19/12 Page 4 of 4