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 

Shari Ferreira, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Paul Penzone, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01845-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ request that the Court allow three client

representatives to sit at the defense table throughout trial. (Doc. 307). At the Final Pretrial 

Conference, Plaintiffs objected to this request. (See Doc. 306 at 3). As per the Court’s 

order, Defendants filed a Memorandum (Doc. 307) regarding the request on April 26, 

2018 and Plaintiffs filed a timely Response (Doc. 314) on April 30, 2018. The Court now 

rules on Defendants’ request and Plaintiffs’ subsequent objection. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

Federal Rule of Evidence (“Rule”) 615 states the general rule that: “At a party’s 

request, the court must order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ 

testimony.” Rule 615 goes on, however, to explain that it does not authorize exclusion of: 

“(b) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person, after being designated 

as the party’s representative by its attorney; [or] (c) a person whose presence a party 

shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense.” Individuals exempt 

from exclusion under Rule 615 are referred to herein as client representatives. 
- 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

II. ANALYSIS 

 Here, Plaintiffs objected to Defendants’ request to designate three individuals as 

client representatives upon invoking the Rule of Exclusion of Witnesses under Rule 615 

at the Final Pretrial Conference. (Doc. 306 at 3). Defendants argue that they are entitled 

to three client representatives under Rule 615(b) “because three Defendants remain” in 

this case—namely, Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sherriff Paul Penzone in his 

official capacity, and Maricopa County Correctional Health Services Medical Director 

Jeffrey Alvarez in his official capacity.1 Although the premise of Defendants’ request is 

that there are three Defendants remaining, Defendants then shift their request to represent 

“categories” of claims and offer up two representatives from the Maricopa County 

Sheriff’s Office and one from Correctional Health Services to match each purported 

category of claim. (Doc. 307 at 2). 

 As Defendants point out in their justification for attempting to designate three 

different client representatives, the role of a client representative is to “assist counsel.” 

(Doc. 307 at 3). Following that justification, the number of client representatives who 

could possibly be of assistance may be numerous and ever-changing, which is contrary to 

the purpose for allowing a client representative on behalf of a party that is not a natural 

person. See, e.g., In re Shell Oil Refinery, 136 F.R.D. 615, 617 (E.D. La. 1991) 

(precluding a corporate defendant from designating a series of client representatives to be 

present at depositions because “by designating multiple corporate representative who are 

also fact witnesses, [the defendant] would in effect avoid the sequestration of witnesses 

rule. That would give [the defendant] an unfair advantage over the plaintiffs.”).2

 1

 Plaintiffs respond that Maricopa County is a jural entity that is capable of being 

sued, whereas both the Sheriff’s Office and Correctional Health Services are non-jural 

entities, which are incapable of being sued in their own name. (Doc. 314 at 2 (citing 

Payne v. Arpaio, No. CV09-1195-PHX-NVW, 2009 WL 3756679, at *5 (D. Ariz. Nov. 

4, 2009) (collecting cases)). As such, Plaintiffs argue that there are not really three 

Defendants in this case, so Defendants should not be entitled to three client 

representatives, because Maricopa County is not distinct from Sheriff Penzone in his 

official capacity and Medical Director Alvarez in his official capacity. 2

 Similarly, Defendants fail to demonstrate that each of their proposed 

representatives is “essential to presenting Defendants’ defenses,” such that they should be 

exempt from exclusion under Rule 615(c). (See Doc. 307 at 2). 
- 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

Both Rule 615(b) and the Advisory Committee’s Note describe who is subject to 

the exception from exclusion by employing singular nouns, rather than plural nouns. Rule 

615(b) refers to designation of a “representative” (singular). The Advisory Committee’s 

Note also refers to “a representative” and “the representative.” See U.S. v. Pulley, 922 

F.2d 1283, 1286 (6th Cir. 1991) (“‘A’ representative, like ‘a’ natural person, ‘a’ police 

officer, and ‘an’ officer or employee, is singular,” therefore “in the instant case we can 

discern no reason to convert the singular into the plural.”); see also § 6245 Exceptions to 

Required Exclusion, 29 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6245 (2d ed. 2018) (“permitting a 

party that is not a natural person to exempt multiple representatives from exclusion could 

be unfair since a party that is a natural person can avoid exclusion under Rule 615(a) only 

for himself.”). Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to designate multiple individuals 

as the client representative (singular) for Sheriff Penzone in his official capacity as head 

of the Sheriff’s Office, nor may Defendants choose a client representative that may 

otherwise be allowable for Maricopa County to effectively serve as a second 

representative for the Sheriff’s Office based on the premise that there are three 

Defendants in this case. Accordingly, Sheriff Penzone and Medical Director Alvarez are 

allowed one and only one client representative each.

3

///

///

///

/// 

///

///

 3

 In their Response, Plaintiffs seemingly confuse the knowledge these designated 

people have—which the attorneys claim will help counsel—with the disclosure 

obligations Defendants would be under if the individuals being offered as client 

representatives had to be disclosed as witnesses. (Doc. 314 at 2).There is a distinction 

between witness disclosure requirements, regardless of whether someone is or is not a 

client representative, and the issue before this Court: Defendants’ request to have three 

clients representatives sit at the defense table throughout trial. The Court will note that 

status as a client representative does not somehow nullify any applicable disclosure 

requirements and restricts its ruling to the narrow issue before it at this time. 
- 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

III. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ objection (Doc. 314) to Defendants’ request

(Doc. 307) that the Court allow three clients representatives to sit at the defense table 

throughout trial is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part. Defendants may 

designate one client representative for Sheriff Penzone from the Sheriff’s Office and one 

for Medical Director Alvarez for Correctional Health Services. The Clerk of Court shall 

not enter judgment at this time. 

Dated this 4th day of May, 2018.