Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01925/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01925-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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 

Andre Almond Dennison, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01925-PHX-SPL (ESW)

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman. He filed a pro 

se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), alleging three claims for 

relief against Defendant Ryan. 

 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan denied Plaintiff a diet 

consistent with his religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Plaintiff states that Defendant has placed 

Plaintiff on a vegan diet inconsistent with the tenets of Plaintiff’s Seventh-Day Adventist 

faith. Plaintiff asserts that his faith requires a diet consisting of fresh fruit, vegetables, 

eggs, grains, legumes, nuts, and dairy products. Plaintiff argues that the failure to 

provide a proper diet substantially burdens the practice of Plaintiff’s religion. (Doc. 1) 

 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan has violated Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion due to the same factual basis as set 

forth in Count One. (Doc. 1) 

 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan violated Plaintiff’s equal 

Case 2:13-cv-01925-SPL-ESW Document 52 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 8
- 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 

protection rights because similarly situated inmates of other religions receive diets 

consistent with their religious beliefs. (Doc. 1) 

 On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. 29). Plaintiff seeks 

more complete responses to requests for interrogatories and production propounded on 

Defendant on May 15, 2014. The parties first attempted to resolve the issues pending by 

good faith personal consultation over the phone and in writing. Defendant’s Response to 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 40) was filed November 12, 2014. Plaintiff’s Reply 

(Doc. 44) was filed December 2, 2014. The matter is deemed submitted for decision. 

 The law provides that a party may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged 

matter that is relevant to a party’s claim. The relevant information need not be 

admissible at trial if it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). All discovery is, however, subject to reasonable 

limitations by the Court when “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, 

the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the 

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). 

I. INTERROGATORIES 

 No. 16: “How Many Jews, Who Receive Kosher Meals, Are There In ADC?” 

 Defendant is able to provide the number of inmates who have established a 

sincere, religious reason for requesting a Kosher diet and received a Kosher diet while 

incarcerated at the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC). This information is 

tracked and relevant. The Court orders Defendant to disclose the number of inmates who 

have established a sincere, religious reason for requesting Kosher meals and have 

received them from January 2013 to the present. The Defendant also tracks the number 

of inmates who identify Judaism as their religious preference. Various faiths have 

recognized tenets inherent in those faiths. Judaism is one such faith. Therefore, the 

number of inmates who identify themselves with Judaism is relevant. The Court orders 

Case 2:13-cv-01925-SPL-ESW Document 52 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 8
- 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 Defendant to disclose the number of inmates who have identified Judaism as their 

religious preference from January 2013 to the present. It is not necessary, however, to 

hand count the overlap of these two fields of data. The burden of such an exercise is 

outweighed by the minimal probative value of the data sought. Because presumably 

religious diets offered by ADC are not restricted to a particular religion, and because the 

Defendant admits that some inmates that identify as Jewish also receive Kosher diets, the 

overlap number is not relevant. It is further undisputed that the cost to Defendant per 

meal type offered is not related to or impacted by the number of people who request each 

meal type or eat each meal type. 

 Therefore, the Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part as set forth 

above as to Interrogatory No. 16. 

 No. 17: “How Many Jewish Prisoners Are Receiving Kosher Meals At 

Rynning Unit?” 

 For the reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis of Interrogatory No. 16, 

 It is ordered that Defendant provide the number of inmates at Rynning Unit who 

have established a sincere, religious reason for requesting a Kosher diet while 

incarcerated and received a Kosher meal plan from January 2013 to the present. 

 It is further ordered that Defendant provide the number of inmates at Rynning Unit 

who have identified Judaism as their religious preference from January 2013 to the 

present. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part as to 

Interrogatory No. 17. 

 No. 18: “How Many Halaal practicing Muslims Are Receiving Halaal 

Compliant Meals in ADC?” 

 The Defendant has indicated that ADC tracks religious preference and meal plan. 

There is no meal plan designated as “Halaal Compliant.” However, Defendant tracks 

individuals who identify their religious preference as Muslim. There are also individuals 

Case 2:13-cv-01925-SPL-ESW Document 52 Filed 01/16/15 Page 3 of 8
- 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 

who express a sincere, religious reason for requesting Kosher and/or vegan meals. For 

the reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis of Interrogatory No. 16, 

 It is ordered that Defendant provide the number of inmates from January 2013 to 

the present who are on each tracked meal plan and the number of inmates who identify 

their religious preference as Muslim. The Motion to Compel is denied in part and 

granted in part as to Interrogatory No. 18. 

 No. 19: How Many Halaal Practicing Muslims Are Receiving Halaal 

Compliant Meals At Rynning Unit?” 

 The Motion to Compel is denied in part and granted in part for the reasons 

previously set forth herein. 

 It is ordered that the Defendant provide the number of inmates at Rynning Unit 

who have identified Muslim as their religious preference from January 2013 to the 

present. 

 It is further ordered that Defendant provide the number of inmates at Rynning Unit 

who have established a sincere, religious reason for requesting a Kosher diet, a vegan 

diet, and any other tracked religious diet while incarcerated and received such meals from 

January 2013 to the present. 

 No. 20: “How Many Actual Vegan Prisoners, Not Those Put Onto The Vegan 

Diet From Other Religions, Are There in the ADC?” 

 The Court sustains Defendant’s objection to this interrogatory. The Court has 

ordered Defendant to provide the number of prisoners who claim a religious preference 

for the Muslim and Jewish faiths and the number of prisoners who receive a specific diet 

(Kosher, vegan, or other) for religious reasons from January 2013 to the present. For the 

reasons previously set forth in the Court’s rulings contained herein, as well as reasons set 

forth in Defendant’s objections, the Motion to Compel is denied as to Interrogatory No. 

20. 

Case 2:13-cv-01925-SPL-ESW Document 52 Filed 01/16/15 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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 

 No. 21: “How Many Actual Vegans, Not Those Put Onto The Diet From 

Other Religions, Are There At Rynning Unit?” 

 The Court sustains the Defendant’s objection to this interrogatory. See also the 

Court’s ruling on Interrogatory No. 20. The Motion to Compel is denied as to 

Interrogatory No. 21. 

II. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

No. 1: “All Complete Arizona Department Of Corrections (“ADC”) Food 

Service Contracts With Canteen Correctional Services and Trinity Services Group, 

Inc. Governing 2007 To Present, Including All Amendments, Extensions, 

Memorandums, Solicitations, Price Sheets, Offers and Acceptance, And 

Attachments.” 

 The Court finds the food service contracts from 2007 to the present requested are 

relevant to the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Motion to Compel is granted as 

to Request No. 1. 

 No. 2: “ADC Position Papers, Memos, And Other Documents, 

Recommending, Approving, And/Or Authorizing Ovo-Lacto-Vegetarian, LactoVegetarian, And Kosher Diets.” 

 The Court finds that the documentation requested is relevant to the issues raised in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Motion to Compel is granted. The Defendant has indicated 

that all such documents found in Defendant’s possession have been provided to the 

Plaintiff. The Defendant has no obligation to obtain documents for the Plaintiff from 

third parties. 

 No. 3: “All Documents, Memoranda, and Position Papers Recommending, 

Approving, And/Or Authorizing The Rescission Of The Ovo-Lacto-Vegetarian 

Diets.” 

Case 2:13-cv-01925-SPL-ESW Document 52 Filed 01/16/15 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 Court finds that the information sought is relevant to the issues raised by 

Plaintiff’s claims. 

 It is ordered granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Request No. 3. 

Defendant has a continuing obligation to produce any documentation in existence in their 

possession responsive to No. 3. The parties have given the Court no reason to believe 

Defendant has not done so. 

 No. 6: “All Restricted Diet Orders and Diet Cards Issued Regarding 

Dennison From 2006 to May 2008.” 

 The Court finds that the information sought is relevant to the issues raised by 

Plaintiff’s claims. 

 It is ordered granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Request No. 6. 

Defendant has a continuing obligation to produce any documentation in existence in their 

possession responsive to No. 6. The parties have given the Court no reason to believe 

Defendant has not done so. 

 No. 7: Diet Reference and Food Service Technical Manuals from 2008 to 

Present.” 

 The Court finds that the information sought is relevant to the issues raised by 

Plaintiff’s claims. 

 It is ordered granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Request No. 7. 

Defendant has a continuing obligation to produce any documentation in existence in their 

possession responsive to No. 7. The parties have given the Court no reason to believe 

Defendant has not done so. Defendant’s objection regarding redactions for security 

reasons are sustained by the Court. 

 No. 8: “All Diet Load Sheets From 2007 to Present.” 

 The Court finds that the information sought is relevant to the issues raised by 

Case 2:13-cv-01925-SPL-ESW Document 52 Filed 01/16/15 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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’s claims. 

 It is ordered granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Request No. 8. 

Defendant has a continuing obligation to produce any documentation in existence in their 

possession responsive to No. 8. The parties have given the Court no reason to believe 

Defendant has not done so. 

 No. 11: “Full Name And Last Known Business And Home Address And 

Phone Number Of The Following: Mike Linderman, John Thompson, ADC 

Chaplain Vicklund, ADC Chaplain Miser, ADC Chaplain Franklin, Ms. Sneed, Mr. 

Sneed, Ms. Pond, and Laura Donnelly.” 

 Defendant’s objection is sustained as to current employees of ADC. Defendant’s 

objections as to former employees of ADC who will not be represented by the Attorney 

General’s Office should he/she be called to offer testimony is overruled. Should any 

former employee listed not be represented if called to testify or provide sworn statements, 

the last known address shall be filed under seal with the Court for purposes of the 

issuance of a subpoena or the necessity of future sworn statements. 

 Defendant’s objection is sustained regarding all individuals not in the employ of 

ADC. The Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part as to Request No. 11. 

 No. 19: “All Pricing Documents Utilized By Canteen/Trinity For Each 

Service They Sell.” 

 Defendant’s objection to this request is sustained. The Plaintiff seeks information 

from the Defendant which is in the possession and control of a third party. 

 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is denied as to Request No. 19. 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 29) is granted as to 

Case 2:13-cv-01925-SPL-ESW Document 52 Filed 01/16/15 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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 

Interrogatory Numbers 16 through 19, subject to the limitations as set forth herein. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 29) is denied as to 

Interrogatory Numbers 20 and 21. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 29) is granted as to 

Request for Production Numbers 1 through 3, 6, 8, and 11, subject to the limitations as 

set forth herein. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 29) is denied as to 

Request for Production Number 19. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no further discovery motions shall be filed by 

the parties without express leave of the Court. In the event of a discovery dispute, the 

parties are ordered to confer as required by Rule 37(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. If the parties in 

good faith are unable to resolve their discovery dispute, the parties shall jointly call 

chambers of the assigned Magistrate Judge and schedule a telephonic Discovery Dispute 

Conference. All discovery disputes shall be discussed at the Conference. Only after 

participating in the Court Conference and with express prior permission of the Magistrate 

Judge shall any party file a discovery motion absent extraordinary circumstances and 

good cause shown. 

 Dated this 16th day of January, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01925-SPL-ESW Document 52 Filed 01/16/15 Page 8 of 8