Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01824/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01824-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ASU Students for Life, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Michael M. Crow, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1824-PHX-MHM 

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’ Report and

Recommendation addressing the discovery dispute heard by this Court on June 14, 2007.

(Dkt.#61). The dispute was created by Defendants Michael Crow, Sally Ramage and Judy

Schroeder’s Rule 34 Fed.R.Civ.P. discovery request sent to Plaintiff Christopher White

(“Plaintiff White”) and a subpoena to non-party Justice for All (“JFA”). The Alliance

Defense Fund (“ADF”), on behalf of Plaintiff White and JFA, objected to the discovery

requests on the basis of the attorney-client privilege. After hearing argument, the Court

referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Voss for Report and Recommendation. (Dkt.#60).

Magistrate Judge Voss filed his Report and Recommendation on July 16, 2007 recommending

that Defendants’ request to compel the production of documents implicated by Defendants’

request be denied. Despite leave to do so as expressly stated in the Report and

Recommendation, neither party filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation.

(Dkt.#61, p.5); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). As neither party objects to Magistrate

Case 2:06-cv-01824-JWS Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

Judge Voss’ Report and Recommendation and good cause appearing, the Court will adopt the

Report and Recommendation as the order of the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (the

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation as the Order of

this Court addressing the June 14, 2007 discovery dispute. (Dkt.#61). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ request to compel is denied. 

DATED this 14th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01824-JWS Document 96 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 2