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

Anant Kumar Tripati,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Corizon Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00066-TUC-RM

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Footnote (Doc. 158), 

Motion in Limine to Bar Witnesses (Doc. 162), Motion for Discovery on Crime Fraud by 

Counsel (Doc. 172), Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion to Compel (Doc. 

186), Motion to Compel (Doc. 187), Motion to Abate Time (Doc. 188), Motion for Leave 

to File Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 189), Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion 

to Compel (Doc. 200), Motion to File Chart (Doc. 205), Motion to Abate Time to Reply 

to Supplement (Doc. 207), and Request to Direct Deputy Warden Examine and Give 

Declaration (Doc. 208). Also pending is Defendants Glen Babich (“Babich”), Corizon 

Inc. (“Corizon”), and Charles Ryan’s (“Ryan”) Motion to Strike (Doc. 203).1

. . . .

. . . .

1 Other pending motions, such as Plaintiff’s Emergency Application to Enjoin 

Ramos and Erwin (Doc. 130), Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions (Doc. 220), 

and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 225, 231), will be resolved 

separately. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Application to Enjoin, though titled as an 

“Emergency Application,” does not require an expedited ruling.
- 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

I. Motion to Strike Footnote (Doc. 158)

This Motion to Strike relates to document 153, which is a Reply in support of a 

Motion for Protective Order filed by non-parties Borhuszewicz, Dossett, Erwin, and 

“ADOC Custodian of Records.” (Doc. 158; see also Doc. 153.) Although the title of the 

Motion to Strike indicates that Plaintiff seeks to strike only a footnote, the body of the 

Motion to Strike indicates that Plaintiff seeks to strike document 153 in its entirety. 

(Doc. 158 at 3-4.)2 In support of the Motion to Strike, Plaintiff complains that the 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office “has consistently engaged in misconduct as to” him, 

and he attaches various documents that purportedly provide evidence of such misconduct. 

(Doc. 158 at 1; see also Doc. 158-1.)

The Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”) provide: 

Unless made at trial, a motion to strike may be filed only if it is authorized 

by statute or rule, such as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f), 26(g)(2), 

or 37(b)(2)(A)(iii), or if it seeks to strike any part of a filing or submission 

on the ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or 

court order.

LRCiv 7.2(m). Here, none of the grounds listed in LRCiv 7.2(m) or the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure support Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, and the Court has already granted 

the underlying Motion for Protective Order at issue. (See Doc. 182 at 5-9, 22.) 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Footnote will be denied.

II. Motion in Limine to Bar Witnesses (Doc. 162)

In this Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to bar Defendants Jose Ramos (“Ramos”), 

Daniel Moreno (“Moreno”), George Osler (“Osler”), and Glenn Schletter (“Schletter”)

from using witnesses listed in their witness list. (Doc. 162 at 1.) In support of this 

request, Plaintiff accuses attorney Paul Carter (“Carter”) of lying to the Court when he 

argued that Plaintiff was on a fishing expedition, and of failing to provide Plaintiff with 

“specifically requested evidence” from the witnesses. (See Doc. 162 at 1-11.) Although 

Plaintiff indicates that Defendants’ witness list is attached to the Motion, the Motion 

contains no attachments, and it is not clear which witnesses Plaintiff is referencing.

2 The Court notes that document 153 does not contain a footnote.
- 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

Defendants Moreno, Osler, Ramos, and Schletter filed a Response (Doc. 166), in 

which they argue that the Court may not consider Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine because 

Plaintiff has not complied with LRCiv 7.2(l). (Doc. 166.) Although LRCiv 7.2(l) 

specifically prohibits the filing of replies in support of motions in limine, Plaintiff 

nevertheless filed a Reply, in which he continues to complain about the conduct of 

Defendants and defense counsel. (Doc. 171.)

LRCiv 7.2(l) provides:

No opposed motion in limine will be considered or decided unless moving 

counsel certifies therein that the movant has in good faith conferred or 

attempted to confer with the opposing party or counsel in an effort to 

resolve disputed evidentiary issues that are the subject of the motion. The 

moving party is not permitted to file a reply in support of its motion in 

limine.

Plaintiff has not filed the certification required by LRCiv 7.2(l) and, accordingly, the 

Court may not consider his Motion in Limine. The Motion in Limine will be summarily 

denied without prejudice.3

III. Motion for Discovery on Crime Fraud by Counsel (Doc. 172)

In this filing, titled “Motion for Discovery on Crime Fraud by Counsel Fernandez, 

Rowey and Carter; First Motion in Limine on Ryan—Corizon—Babich; with 

Declaration—Exhibit,” Plaintiff continues to complain about the conduct of Defendants 

and defense counsel—including defense counsel’s use of boiler-plate discovery 

objections in litigation—and he argues that Defendants should be barred from using any 

evidence requested but not produced during discovery. (Doc. 172.) Plaintiff also argues 

that “discovery should be allowed pursuant to the crime-fraud exception.” (Id. at 9.) 

Plaintiff’s filing is 35 pages long, with 165 pages of attachments which include discovery 

responses from Ryan, Corizon, and Babich; letters; and search-result print-outs. (See 

Docs. 172, 172-1, 172-2, 172-3.)

Defendants Corizon, Ryan, and Babich filed a Response in which they argue that 

Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied because the crime-fraud exception applies only in 

3 The Court notes that, even if LRCiv 7.2(l) did not prohibit the consideration of 

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information from which 

the Court could resolve the Motion on the merits.
- 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

criminal cases “wherein the government has the burden of showing that certain attorneyclient communications furthered the commission of a crime or fraud.” (Doc. 178 at 1.) 

Defendants further argue that “[i]f Plaintiff believes Defendants have withheld relevant 

and discoverable evidence, the proper vehicle to assert those claims would be in a Motion 

to Compel.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff filed a 21-page Reply. (Doc. 183.)

The requests for relief contained in Plaintiff’s Motion are unclear. To the extent 

that Plaintiff is arguing that he is entitled to the disclosure of evidence that Defendants 

have allegedly wrongfully withheld during discovery, the Motion constitutes a motion to 

compel filed without leave of Court, in contravention of the discovery-dispute procedures 

set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order. (See Doc. 64 at 2-3.)4 To the extent that 

Plaintiff is arguing that evidence should be precluded, his Motion constitutes a motion in 

limine and was filed without the certification required by LRCiv 7.2(l). The Court also 

notes that Plaintiff’s 35-page Motion and 21-page Reply exceed the presumptive page 

limits of LRCiv 7.2(e)(1)-(2), without leave of Court. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to 

clearly explain how the specific documents attached to his Motion support his request(s) 

for relief, nor are his allegations sufficiently clear or supported for the Court to grant any 

relief. Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied.

IV. Filings Related to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 187)

In an Order signed on November 15, 2019 and filed on November 18, 2019 

(“November 15, 2019 Order”), the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file motions to compel 

against Defendants Corizon, Babich, Ryan, Ramos and Moreno. (Doc. 182 at 9-10, 13-

14, 22-23.) The Court also directed Plaintiff to attach to the motions copies of the specific 

discovery requests and responses in dispute. (Doc. 182 at 10, 14, 22-23.) On November 

25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion to Compel 

(Doc. 186), a combined Motion to Compel against Defendants Ramos, Moreno, Corizon, 

4 Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery on Crime Fraud by Counsel (Doc. 172), was filed 

prior to issuance of the Court’s November 15, 2019 Order, which granted Plaintiff leave 

to file the separate Motion to Compel (Doc. 187) addressed below. (See Doc. 182 at 9-

10, 13-14, 22-23.) To the extent Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery on Crime Fraud by 

Counsel constitutes a motion to compel, no order authorized the filing.
- 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

Ryan, and Babich (Doc. 187), and a Motion to Abate Time (Doc. 188).

In his Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, Plaintiff requests permission to 

exceed by one page the page limit for his combined Motion to Compel. (Doc. 186.) 

LRCiv 7.2(e)(1) provides: “Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a motion including 

its supporting memorandum . . . may not exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of 

attachments and any required statement of facts.” Plaintiff’s combined Motion to 

Compel is 24 pages in length, including the cover page, table of contents, and table of 

cases. (Doc. 187.) Given the fact that the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file two 

motions to compel and he instead filed a combined Motion to Compel, the Court will 

grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.5

A. Motion to Compel (Doc. 187), Motion to Abate Time (Doc. 188), 

Supplemental Filings (Docs. 197, 198, 199), Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. 200), 

and Motion to Strike (Doc. 203)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel indicates that discovery requests for emails,

grievance records, investigative reports, training and employee discipline records, and 

records of bonuses paid to Corizon, may be in dispute. (See Doc. 187.) However, the 

Court is unable to discern from Plaintiff’s Motion which specific discovery requests and 

responses are in issue. LRCiv 37.1 requires a party filing a motion to compel to set forth 

in distinct, numbered paragraphs:

(1) the question propounded, the interrogatory submitted, the declaration 

requested or the inspection requested;

(2) the answer, designation or response received; and

(3) the reason(s) why said answer, designation or response is deficient.

LRCiv 37.1(a). In addition, the Court ordered Plaintiff to attach to his Motion to Compel 

copies of the specific discovery requests and responses in issue. (Doc. 182 at 10, 14, 22-

23.) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel does not comply with LRCiv 37.1 or the Court’s 

November 15, 2019 Order.

In his Motion to Abate Time, Plaintiff avers that he cannot satisfy LRCiv 37.1 or 

the Court’s Order because Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADC”) employees, by 

5 To the extent that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages also includes a 

request to waive compliance with LRCiv 37.1, the Court denies that request.
- 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

directive of Julia Erwin, are forbidden from making legal copies for him. (Doc. 188.) He 

appears to request an additional 30 days in which to comply with the Court’s Order to 

attach copies of the specific discovery requests and responses in dispute. (See id.)

On December 11, 2019, Defendants Moreno, Osler, Ramos, and Schletter filed a 

Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion to Abate Time (Doc. 195), and 

Defendants Corizon, Babich, and Ryan filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 

(Doc. 196). In their Response, Defendants Moreno, Osler, Ramos, and Schletter argue 

that Plaintiff has “neither complied with the Court’s Order that he attach ‘copies of the 

specific discovery requests and responses at issue’ to his Motion [to Compel] nor shown 

good cause for his failure to comply with it.” (Doc. 195 at 3 (internal citation omitted).) 

Defendants note that, in just over a month, Plaintiff included 200 pages of copies with his 

court filings, belying his assertion that he is unable to obtain copies. (Id.) Defendants 

also argue that Plaintiff “has not even claimed—much less established—that he asked the 

ADC for copies of any objectionable discovery responses and that his request was 

denied.” (Id.) Finally, Defendants note that Plaintiff does not claim that he has been 

unable to provide handwritten transcriptions of the subject discovery requests and 

responses, and they argue that Plaintiff has failed to even identify the discovery requests 

and responses at issue in his combined Motion to Compel. (Id.) Accordingly, 

Defendants Moreno, Osler, Ramos, and Schletter argue that both Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Compel and Motion to Abate Time should be denied. Defendants Corizon, Babich, and 

Ryan similarly argue that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel should be denied because Plaintiff 

failed to comply with LRCiv 37.1 and the Court’s directive to attach copies of the 

specific discovery requests and responses at issue to his Motion to Compel. (Doc. 196 at 

1-2.) Defendants Corizon, Babich, and Ryan argue that Plaintiff “failed to request a 

timely extension to gather” the documents (id. at 1), but they fail to address Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Abate Time.

On the same date that Defendants filed their Responses to Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Compel and Motion to Abate Time, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Filing Original Discovery 
- 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

Documents in Support of Motion to Compel (Doc. 197), a document titled “Local Rule 

Civil 37(a) Statement in Support of Motion to Compel” (“Rule 37.1 Statement”) (Doc. 

198), a document titled “Separately Filed Reasons why Ryan, Babich, Corizon Responses 

Insufficient” (Doc. 199), and a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to 

Compel (Doc. 200). In his Notice of Filing Original Discovery Documents in Support of 

Motion to Compel, Plaintiff avers that he is attaching original discovery responses in 

support of his Motion to Compel against Corizon, Ryan, and Babich, as ordered by the 

Court. (Doc. 197 at 1.) He avers that he has requested but has not received copies of the 

other Defendants’ responses. (Id. at 1 n.1.) Plaintiff attaches a 41-page exhibit 

containing copies of discovery responses from Corizon, Ryan, and Babich. (Doc. 197-1.)

Plaintiff’s Rule 37.1 Statement is an 87-page document that sets forth the 

discovery requests and responses at issue as to Defendants Ryan, Babich, and Corizon; 

the document also includes arguments as to why Defendants’ contested responses are 

insufficient. (Doc. 198.) In his 22-page “Separately Filed Reasons why Ryan, Babich, 

Corizon Responses Insufficient,” Plaintiff transcribes the arguments contained within his 

Rule 37.1 Statement regarding why Defendants’ disputed discovery responses are 

insufficient. (Doc. 199.)

In his Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Compel (Doc. 200),

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of 106 pages of documents attached as an exhibit (Doc. 

200-1). Plaintiff argues that the attached documents are relevant to certain discovery

responses by Babich and Corizon (Doc. 200 at 7-8) and are relevant to show that Ryan 

acted with “deliberate [indifference] whe[n] he gave Corizon incentives and reduced 

penalties, even though[] his employees[’] and Corizon[’s] reports[] show that Corizon 

was defrauding the state and providing constitutionally [in]adequate care” (id. at 6-7).

On December 12, 2019, Defendants moved to strike Plaintiff’s filings appearing at 

documents 197, 198, 199, and 200. (Doc. 203.)6 Defendants argue that the filings should 

be stricken “because they are in violation of this Court’s November [15], 2019 Order, are 

6 Defendants requested an expedited ruling on their Motion to Strike. (Doc. 203 at 

1.) The request for an expedited ruling is denied.
- 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

untimely, and improperly and excessively exceed page limits without Court permission.” 

(Doc. 203 at 1.) Defendants characterize Plaintiff’s supplemental filings as a second, 

untimely motion to compel filed without leave of Court; they note that the filings total 

224 pages, not including the discovery responses themselves; and they argue that 

Plaintiff’s failure to maintain copies of discovery responses does not “excuse his filing a 

second, untimely discovery motion without leave of Court and while flagrantly 

disregarding page limits.” (Id. at 2.)

On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of his Motion to Abate 

Time (Doc. 209) and a Reply in support of his Motion to Compel (Doc. 210). In his 

Reply in support of Motion to Abate Time, Plaintiff avers that he sent letters to attorneys 

Nichole Rowey (“Rowey”) and Carter; that Rowey responded by sending him a duplicate 

copy of her discovery responses and that he immediately filed a separate statement; and 

that Carter did not respond. (Doc. 209 at 1-2.) Plaintiff again avers that he is unable to 

obtain copies and promises to file a separate statement within three days of receiving a 

duplicate set of discovery responses from Carter. (Id. at 2-3.) In his Reply in support of 

Motion to Compel, Plaintiff argues that he filed his combined Motion to Compel in good 

faith and immediately filed a separate statement after receiving a duplicate copy of 

discovery responses from Rowey. (Doc. 210 at 1.) He attaches two tables that he alleges 

clarify which records were requested and why they are significant. (Id. at 1-2; see also

Doc. 210-1 at 1-2.)

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants’ Motion to 

Strike. (Doc. 212.) In the Response, Plaintiff argues that there is no page limit for his 

Rule 37.1 Statement “because the entire request, responses, reasons have to be rewritten.” (Doc. 212 at 1-2.) Plaintiff also notes that the Court ordered him to file copies 

of the original discovery responses at issue, which he did at document 197-1. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff argues that his request for judicial notice needed to be filed separately and that, 

given the volume of his filings, he filed document 199 for judicial convenience. (Id.) 

Plaintiff disputes Defendants’ characterization of the filings as a second motion to 
- 9 -

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

compel. (Id.)

Defendants filed a Reply in support of their Motion to Strike on January 2, 2020. 

(Doc. 217.) In the Reply, Defendants agree that ADC does not provide Plaintiff with free 

copies of his legal papers because Plaintiff has accumulated three strikes for purposes of 

the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (Doc. 217 at 1.)

7

 However, Defendants argue that the 

fact that Plaintiff is not provided with free copies of legal documents or with indigent 

supplies “does not excuse his failure to provide evidence in support of his first Motion to 

Compel.” (Id.) Defendants suggest that “Plaintiff could have foregone the first Motion 

to Compel and filed a timely request for extension to file a discovery motion.” (Id. at 2.) 

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s supplemental filings constitute a second discovery 

motion because “they would require a separate response from Defendants,” and that 

“requiring Defendants to respond to the additional pages would impose and [sic] undue 

and unwarranted burden.” (Id.)

B. Analysis

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff has made efforts to comply with LRCiv 37.1 

and this Court’s November 15, 2019 Order. However, the Court also recognizes the 

burden involved in making sense of and responding to Plaintiff’s scattered, lengthy 

filings.

Plaintiff does not dispute that he received original copies of the discovery 

responses that he alleges are insufficient. Although ADC apparently refuses to provide

Plaintiff with free copies of legal documents, Plaintiff does not dispute that he is and has 

been capable of making handwritten transcriptions of the discovery requests and 

responses at issue in his Motion to Compel in order to comply with LRCiv 37.1; indeed, 

Plaintiff provided such handwritten transcriptions of Defendants Corizon, Babich, and 

Ryan’s responses in his Rule 37.1 Statement (Doc. 198). Plaintiff has offered no 

7 Defendants have offered no legal authority in support of their position that an 

indigent prisoner-plaintiff who has accrued three strikes for purposes of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act but who has nevertheless been granted permission to proceed in 

forma pauperis in a particular matter has no right to receive from the prison copies of 

legal documents relevant to the matter in which he has been granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. The Court declines to address that issue at this time.
- 10 -

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

explanation as to why he could not have provided handwritten transcriptions from his

original copy of Corizon, Babich, and Ryan’s responses, as opposed to providing such 

transcriptions only after being sent an additional copy of the responses by attorney 

Rowey. In addition, Plaintiff previously filed copies of discovery responses from 

Defendants Corizon, Babich, and Ryan (see Doc. 172-1), to which he could have 

referred. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff avers that attorney Carter has not provided him with an 

additional copy of Defendants Moreno, Osler, Ramos, and Schletter’s discovery 

responses, but he has provided no authority to support his contention that Carter is 

obligated to provide him with an additional copy of those responses, no explanation as to 

what happened to his original copy of those responses, and no explanation as to why he 

cannot provide handwritten transcriptions of the disputed discovery requests and 

responses using his original copy of those responses. Accordingly, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff has not shown good cause to support his Motion to Abate Time to supplement 

his Motion to Compel, and the Court will deny the Motion to Abate Time. In light of the 

denial of the Motion to Abate Time, Plaintiff has not obtained leave of Court to file the

supplement to his Motion to Compel (see Docs. 197, 198, 199) with respect to 

Defendants Babich, Corizon, and Ryan, and the supplement is untimely.

In addition, Plaintiff’s supplemental filings are oversized without leave of Court. 

Plaintiff argues that there is no page limit for his Rule 37.1 Statement “because the entire 

request, responses, reasons have to be re-written” (Doc. 212 at 1-2); however, Plaintiff

points to no Local Rule or Court Order waiving page limits with respect to motions to 

compel. Motions to compel, like all motions, must comply with the page limits of LRCiv

7.2(e), absent leave of Court. Plaintiff requested leave of Court to file his original 24-

page Motion to Compel (see Docs. 186, 187), but without the later-filed supplemental 

materials (Docs. 197, 198, 199), the original Motion to Compel fails to comply with 

LRCiv 37.1 and this Court’s November 15, 2019 Order. Plaintiff’s 87-page Rule 37.1

Statement should have been filed as part of or instead of Plaintiff’s original Motion to 
- 11 -

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

Compel, and Plaintiff did not request or obtain leave of Court to file an 87-page motion 

to compel. The Court declines to sua sponte grant such leave of Court because, after

reviewing Plaintiff’s Rule 37.1 Statement, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 

sufficiently narrow his discovery disputes so as to be able to present them in a manner 

that more closely abides by the standard page limits set forth in LRCiv 7.2(e). Because 

Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Original Discovery Documents in Support of Motion to 

Compel (Doc. 197), Rule 37.1 Statement (Doc. 198), and “Separately Filed Reasons why 

Ryan, Babich, Corizon Responses Insufficient” (Doc. 199), are untimely and filed 

without leave of Court, and because the Rule 37.1 Statement and “Separately Filed 

Reasons why Ryan, Babich, Corizon Responses Insufficient” exceed LRCiv 7.2(e)’s 

presumptive page limits without leave of Court, Defendants’ Motion to Strike will be 

granted to the extent Defendants request that documents 197, 198, and 199 be stricken 

from the docket.

The Court does not find that Defendants have adequately shown why Plaintiff’s 

Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. 200) should be stricken. However, the Court will deny 

the Request for Judicial Notice, as Plaintiff has not shown that the 106 pages of attached 

documents are an appropriate subject for judicial notice, nor has he shown that review of 

the documents is necessary or helpful in resolving his Motion to Compel.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel will be denied because it does not comply with 

LRCiv 37.1 or this Court’s November 15, 2019 Order. The Motion does not identify the 

discovery requests and responses at issue, nor does it sufficiently show why the discovery 

responses at issue are inadequate.

V. Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 189)

Plaintiff moves for leave to file an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s November 

15, 2019 Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify the Arizona Attorney General. 

(Doc. 189; see also Doc. 182 at 1-4, 22.) Defendants Moreno, Osler, Ramos, and 

Schletter filed a Response, arguing that an order denying disqualification is not separately 

appealable. (Doc. 204 (citing Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379 
- 12 -

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

(1981); Shurance v. Planning Control Int’l, Inc., 839 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th Cir. 1988).) 

Plaintiff filed a Reply, arguing that the cases cited by Defendants are distinguishable and 

that under the facts presented here, an interlocutory appeal is permitted. (Doc. 216

(citing Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, 511 U.S. 863, 867 (1994).)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals 

from final decisions of the district courts of the United States, which includes a narrow 

class of “final ‘collateral orders’” which “resolve an important issue completely separate 

from the merits of the action” and are “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final 

judgment.” Firestone Tire, 449 U.S. at 375. The United States Supreme Court has held 

that “orders denying motions to disqualify counsel are not appealable final decisions 

under § 1291,” as such orders are not “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final 

judgment.” Id. at 370, 376, 379-80 (remanding with instructions that appeal be dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The courts of appeals also have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 of 

appeals from certain interlocutory orders not at issue here. In addition, a district judge 

may certify an order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) if the judge 

is “of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there 

is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the 

order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” To the extent 

that Plaintiff is requesting certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the Court 

declines the request because the Court’s November 15, 2019 Order denying 

disqualification does not involve “a controlling question of law as to which there is 

substantial ground for difference of opinion,” and an immediate appeal from that Order 

would not “materially advance the ultimate termination” of this litigation. See Shurance, 

839 F.2d at 1348-49.

The case cited by Plaintiff, Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 

U.S. 863 (1994), does not support Plaintiff’s argument that the Court’s Order denying 

disqualification is subject to interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied.
- 13 -

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

VI. Motion to File Chart (Doc. 205)

On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to File Chart, in which he requests 

leave to file a flow chart “to help the court better understand—in a snapshot—the 

events.” (Doc. 205 at 1.) Although it appears that the chart may relate to Plaintiff’s 

Emergency Application to Enjoin Ramos and Erwin, it is not clear. (See Doc. 205 at 2.) 

As Plaintiff has failed to specify the particular filing(s) to which the chart relates, failed 

to attach the chart as an exhibit to a specific motion or response, and failed to show that 

review of the chart would be necessary or helpful in resolving any particular motion, the 

Court will deny the Motion to File Chart.

VII. Motion to Abate Time (Doc. 207)

In this Motion, filed on December 16, 2019, Plaintiff appears to request an 

extension of time to file a reply in support of an October 17, 2019 filing titled

“Supplemental Citation in Support of Motions.” (Doc. 207; see also Doc. 167.) On 

October 31, 2019, Defendants Moreno, Osler, Ramos, and Schletter filed a Response to

the “Supplemental Citation in Support of Motions,” asking the Court to decline to 

consider the filing and to strike it from the record, as Plaintiff had cited no authority for 

the filing and Defendants were aware of none. (Doc. 173.)

Plaintiff’s “Supplemental Citation in Support of Motions” was not filed as a 

motion and it contains material repetitive to that contained in other filings that Plaintiff 

has made in this case. Although Defendants’ Response should have been filed as a 

motion to strike, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s filing is subject to 

being struck pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(m) because it is not authorized by any statute, rule or 

court order. Accordingly, the Court will strike Plaintiff’s “Supplemental Citation in

Support of Motions” (Doc. 167) and deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Abate Time (Doc. 207).

VIII. Request to Direct Deputy Warden Examine and Give Declaration (Doc. 208)

In this filing, Plaintiff accuses Ramos of submitting a false declaration and asks 

the Court to order non-party Deputy Warden Patrick O’Brien to submit a declaration that 

he has seen a CD allegedly taken from Plaintiff. (Doc. 208 at 1, 3.) Plaintiff also asks 
- 14 -

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

that defense counsel Carter be directed to provide Plaintiff “with copies of all emails—

attachments—reports—grievances by those in his witness list.” (Id. at 3.) Furthermore, 

Plaintiff requests leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. (Id. at 3-4.)

To the extent that Plaintiff requests discovery, he has failed to comply with the 

discovery-dispute procedures set forth in this Court’s Scheduling Order. (See Doc. 64 at 

2-3.) To the extent he requests leave to amend his complaint, he has failed to comply 

with LRCiv 15.1. To the extent he requests any other relief, his request is vague and 

unsupported, and will be denied.

IX. Declaration of Christopher Henson (Doc. 213) and Notice (Doc. 229)

In a filing titled “Declaration of Christopher Henson” (Doc. 213), which Plaintiff 

alleges relates to Defendants’ Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Emergency 

Application to Enjoin Ramos and Erwin (lodged at Doc. 194 and filed at Doc. 202), 

Plaintiff attaches a document purporting to be a declaration of Christopher Henson (Doc. 

213 at 4-5), in which Henson avers that he overheard correctional officers discussing the 

destruction of Plaintiff’s CDs and medical records. In a Notice filed on January 30, 2020, 

which Plaintiff also alleges relates to Defendants’ Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s 

Emergency Application to Enjoin Ramos and Erwin, Plaintiff attaches inmate informal 

complaint responses that he argues show that non-party “Julia Erwin lied in her 

declaration.” (Docs. 229, 229-1.) 

If Plaintiff believes that the Henson declaration or the inmate informal complaint 

responses are relevant to the parties’ supplemental briefing regarding Plaintiff’s 

Emergency Application to Enjoin Ramos and Erwin, he should have filed them as 

exhibits to his Supplemental Reply (Doc. 206). Plaintiff did not seek leave of Court to 

amend the Supplemental Reply to include the documents as additional exhibits. The 

Court will sua sponte strike the Declaration of Christopher Henson (Doc. 213) and the 

Notice and attachments (Docs. 229, 229-1) from the docket, because the filings were not 

authorized by any statute, rule, or court order. See LRCiv 7.2(m).

. . . .
- 15 -

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

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Footnote (Doc. 158) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Bar Witnesses (Doc. 162) is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery on Crime Fraud by Counsel (Doc. 172) is

denied.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. 186) is granted to 

the extent that Plaintiff requests permission to exceed the page limit for his 

combined Motion to Compel. Plaintiff’s 24-page combined Motion to 

Compel (Doc. 187) is considered properly filed. The Motion for Leave to 

File Excess Pages (Doc. 186) is denied to the extent it requests any other 

relief.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 187) is denied.

6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Abate Time (Doc. 188) is denied.

7. Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 203) is partially granted. The Clerk 

of Court is directed to strike the supplemental filings appearing at 

documents 197, 198, and 199.

8. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. 200) is denied.

9. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 189) is

denied.

10.Plaintiff’s Motion to File Chart (Doc. 205) is denied.

11.Plaintiff’s Motion to Abate Time (Doc. 207) is denied.

12.The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiff’s “Supplemental Citation 

in Support of Motions” (Doc. 167) from the docket.

13.Plaintiff’s Request to Direct Deputy Warden Examine and Give 

Declaration (Doc. 208) is denied.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .
- 16 -

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

14.The Clerk of Court is directed to strike the Declaration of Christopher 

Henson (Doc. 213) and Plaintiff’s Notice and attachments thereto (Docs. 

229, 229-1) from the docket.

Dated this 11th day of February, 2020.