Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02317/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02317-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 

Lynne Korff, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Phoenix, City of, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-02317-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

 The Court has considered Motion for Order Requiring Plaintiff to Sign and Have 

Notarized a Next-of-Kin Consent & Release Authorization of Specimen Release for 

Outside Testing and Motion to Extend Deadline for Defendants to Disclose 

Pharmacology Expert (Doc. 110), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 123), and Defendants’ 

Reply (Doc. 166). Oral argument has been requested. However, the Court deems oral 

argument unnecessary to a determination of the issues presented. 

 This is a wrongful death and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case arising from a shooting by 

City of Phoenix Police Officers which occurred in Phoenix, Arizona, on June 4, 2012. 

The decedent, Timothy O’Brien, was the Plaintiff’s adult son. In the Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 1-1) filed November 13, 2013, the Plaintiff alleges that Timothy was 

“disabled” and “diagnosed with a mental disability.” The Plaintiff further alleges that the 

Defendant officers knew or “should have known that Timothy had special needs, based 

on reasonable observation and diligence, including their knowledge of the setting of 

Telephone Pioneer Park or simply talking to and interacting with Timothy.” Id. The 

Case 2:13-cv-02317-ESW Document 185 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Plaintiff alleges that the officers had “no reasonable basis to suspect that Timothy posed 

an immediate threat to them or anyone else.” Id. The officers came into contact with 

Timothy while responding to a 911 call made by a third party. Dispatch initially relayed 

to officers the following: “Male with a bat yelling at people at the public pool.” (Doc. 

123-1, p. 2). The parties dispute the facts at the scene leading up to the shots fired by 

officers which resulted in Timothy’s death. 

 Discovery in the case is on-going. In December 2014, Defendants received and 

reviewed Timothy O’Brien’s mental health records from Partners in Recovery. The 

records include care provider entries from 2012 immediately prior to Timothy’s death. 

These visit notes raise the issues of Timothy’s medication compliance and his use of 

spice and alcohol. Defendants are requesting that they be allowed to test a frozen blood 

sample of Timothy which was retained by the Maricopa County Medical Examiner’s 

Office at the time of his autopsy. Defendants request permission to test the decedent’s 

blood for the presence of synthetic cannabinoids, spice, cannabis, and his prescribed 

medication. Defendants have confirmed with the Maricopa County Medical Examiner 

that the blood sample exists and that it can be sent to a lab in Pennsylvania which can test 

the sample relatively quickly. Defendants argue that the presence of spice in Mr. 

O’Brien’s blood system and his medication compliance at the time of his death are 

relevant to the issue of his mental state and any behaviors he may have exhibited prior to 

his death. Though a toxicology report was generated as a result of Timothy’s autopsy, 

his blood was not tested to detect the presence of his prescribed medication, spice, or 

cannabis. 

 Defendants request that the Court order Plaintiff to sign before a notary a Next-ofKin Consent and Release Authorization of Specimen Release for Outside Testing. 

Defendants also request an extension of time to disclose their pharmacology expert’s 

opinions regarding the results. 

 Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ requests because: (1) good cause has not been 

shown to support an extension of the expert disclosure deadlines or further discovery in 

Case 2:13-cv-02317-ESW Document 185 Filed 03/16/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

the case; (2) Defendants did not discuss with opposing counsel the full breadth of the 

testing requested prior to filing their discovery motion; (3) any illegal drug or substance 

use and medication compliance by the decedent is irrelevant and highly prejudicial; and 

(4) the late expert opinion sought is cumulative of expert opinions previously disclosed. 

Defendants have provided to Plaintiff reports addressing Timothy’s use of spice, 

specifically from Charles Huth and Pamela Potter-O’Brien, Ph.D. 

 The Court finds, based upon all the information presented, that the information 

Defendants seek is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence pursuant to Rule 26(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. The testing of Timothy’s 

blood does not result in production of unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or 

burdensome evidence. Whether the decedent was under the influence of spice, cannabis, 

or other substances during his contact with the officers and whether he was taking 

prescribed medication is relevant to the issue of the decedent’s behavior at the park at the 

time he came into contact with the police. Timothy’s behavior in the park as observed by 

the officers and witnesses is in dispute. “In a case . . . where what the officer perceived 

just prior to the use of force is in dispute, evidence that may support one version of events 

over another is relevant and admissible.” Boyd v. City & Cnty of San Francisco, 576 

F.3d 938, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2009). Timothy’s blood has never been tested for his 

prescribed medication or other substances recently disclosed in medical records reflective 

of the days prior to his death. Timothy’s blood sample results are probative of Timothy’s 

conduct immediately prior to the shooting. Cf. Hayes v. County of San Diego, 736 F.3d 

1223 (9th Cir. 2013) (where there is no factual dispute regarding actions of decedent, 

evidence of drugs and/or alcohol in decedent’s blood is irrelevant). 

 The Court further finds that the pharmacology experts for both Defendants and 

Plaintiff may update their respective opinions upon receipt of the blood test results. No 

prejudice to either side is shown by an extension of the expert opinion deadline to 

accommodate the new test results sought. No trial date has been set. Defendants have 

demonstrated good cause to extend the deadline and attempted to meet and confer prior to 

Case 2:13-cv-02317-ESW Document 185 Filed 03/16/15 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

filing their Motion. Therefore, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff sign before a notary the Next-of-Kin Consent & 

Release Authorization of Specimen Release for Outside Testing within 14 days of the 

filing of the Court’s Order. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending Defendants’ pharmacology expert opinion 

disclosure deadline and Plaintiff’s rebuttal pharmacology expert opinion disclosure 

deadline to 30 days after the receipt of Plaintiff’s signed authorization and 30 days after 

the service of Defendants’ supplemental disclosure statement, respectively. 

 IT IS ORDERED granting Motion for Order Requiring Plaintiff to Sign and Have 

Notarized a Next-of-Kin Consent & Release Authorization of Specimen Release for 

Outside Testing and Motion to Extend Deadline for Defendants to Disclose 

Pharmacology Expert (Doc. 110). 

 Dated this 16th day of March, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-02317-ESW Document 185 Filed 03/16/15 Page 4 of 4