Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

Greg Moore; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Sean Garnand; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 19-00290 TUC RM (MAA)

ORDER

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion, filed on May 13, 2024, for an order

compelling discovery and for attorney fees and costs, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(A),

and for sanctions, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A). Doc. 482. The defendants filed a

response on May 24, 2024. Doc. 496. The plaintiffs did not file a reply.

 The plaintiffs in this action (“the Moores”) claim their constitutional rights were

violated when the defendants obtained and executed two search warrants in connection with

an arson investigation into the destruction of the Forgeus Apartments on June 8, 2017.

Complaint, Doc. 1; see Doc. 391, p. 2 (“The remaining claims in this matter are Counts One,

Three and Four of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.”). The Moores bring this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1, p. 4. The first warrant, for DNA and other personal effects, was

executed on June 9, 2017. Doc. 1, p. 8. The second warrant, for financial documents, was

executed on June 14, 2017. Doc. 1, pp. 9-10. The Moores claim, among other things, that

the warrant applications were not supported by probable cause and contained “material

misrepresentations and omissions.” Doc. 1, pp. 16-18.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 504 Filed 07/03/24 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 -

Discussion

“If a party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a), any other party may move

to compel disclosure and for appropriate sanctions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(A). Rule 26(a)

discusses, among other things, initial disclosure, disclosure of expert testimony, and pretrial

disclosures. Fed.R.Civ.P. “If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit

discovery . . . the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A).

According to the Moores, the defendants have disclosed “several hundred photographs

taken (1) the night of June 8, 2017 at the Forgeus property; (2) photographs taken of the

searches and seizures on June 14, 2017 at the Speedway offices; and (3), photographs taken

that same day at the home of the Moores during the searches and seizures there.” Doc. 482,

p. 2. During the course of discovery, the Moores have learned that these photographs were

originally stored in the Tucson Police Department computer system and each image has

metadata associated with it that was not included in the photographs that were originally

disclosed to the plaintiffs. The Moores subsequently filed the pending motion to compel the

defendants to disclose this metadata. Doc. 482. The Moores believe the metadata will

contain date and time information for the photographs that will help them reconstruct the

sequence of events taken by the Tucson Police Department during their investigation, which

is information “the witnesses have forgotten.” Doc. 482, p. 3.

The Moores further argue that this metadata should have been disclosed at the

beginning of the case because this action was part of the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot

Project (MIDP), General Order 17-8, ¶ 4, which requires each party to disclose, among other

things, electronically stored information. Doc. 3. It appears that many of the photographs

were originally disclosed as a result of a separate state civil action that the Moores brought

pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Act (“the Act”), A.R.S. § 39-121. 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 504 Filed 07/03/24 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

 Discovery in this case was originally limited by the law enforcement investigatory 1

privilege. Doc. 74. This privilege was later abrogated by the court, at which point the

defendants should have made an unredacted “initial” discovery disclosure as required by the

MIDP and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a), if they had not already done so. See Doc. 306.

- 3 -

It appears that the photographs and their metadata should have been part of the

defendants’ initial discovery disclosure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i) (Documents 1

should be produced “as they are kept in the usual course of business . . . .”); see, e.g., United

States ex rel. Humane Soc’y of the United States v. Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., 2012 WL

12886501, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2012) (“[T]he Government has complied with the

requirements of Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) by producing all [Electronically Stored Information] in

its native format, with all existing metadata.”). The metadata appears to be relevant and

should not be too difficult to retrieve assuming the Moores are correct and the metadata is

attached to the images stored in the Tucson Police Department computer system. The motion

to compel as it relates to these photographs will be granted.

The defendants argue that the Moores should have known that the photographs

originally contained metadata and their failure to raise the issue before now must be a

“strategic decision.” Doc. 496, p. 3. The defendants do not opine, however, on what

advantage the Moores might hope to gain by this alleged “strategic decision.” 

The defendants further argue that the metadata is not necessary to divine the sequence

of events that took place when the defendants executed their search warrants. “Placards were

filled out by the police officers who took the PDF Photographs to indicate the beginning time

for the taking of every specific group of photographs.” Doc. 496, p. 5. Photos of the

placards presumably were disclosed to the Moores.

The court does not agree that these placards are a good substitute for the metadata.

It appears that these placards will supply some information about where and when each group

of photographs was taken, but it does not appear that they will reveal the actual sequence of

events that took place when the Tucson Police Department conducted their investigation.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 504 Filed 07/03/24 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion, filed on May 13, 2024, for an order

compelling discovery and for attorney fees and costs, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(A),

and for sanctions, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A), is GRANTED IN PART. Doc. 482.

Within 10 days from the date this order is issued, the defendants shall disclose to the

plaintiffs a copy of the previously disclosed photographs “taken (1) the night of June 8, 2017

at the Forgeus property; (2) photographs taken of the searches and seizures on June 14, 2017

at the Speedway offices; and (3), photographs taken that same day at the home of the Moores

during the searches and seizures there” that are stored in electronic form by the Tucson

Police Department, with their metadata attached. Doc. 482, p. 2. The remainder of the

motion is DENIED. The court finds, on this record, that sanctions are not appropriate. 

DATED this 1 day of July, 2024. st

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 504 Filed 07/03/24 Page 4 of 4