Free Response - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6

Terry Goddard Attorney General Michele L. Forney, Bar No. 019775 Assistant Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Telephone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants

7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI Document 170 Filed 06/23/2008 Page 1 of 4

Timothy Lee Ward, No. CV 03-2159 PHX ROS (JRI) Plaintiff, v. Sgt. Carr, et al., Defendants. Pursuant to the Court's Order dated March 26, 2008 (dkt. 133), Defendants Carr and Stewart hereby set forth their position to Plaintiff's recitation of remaining discovery disputes in this matter. In his Notice (dkt. 166), Plaintiff identified the remaining disputes by number. Defendants follow the same scheme herein. Items #1 through 6 -- These items are the subject of the parties' stipulation to submit materials for in camera review. The parties request an order determining whether the items are relevant and should be produced to Plaintiff over Defendants' concerns for confidentiality, safety and prison security. Item #7 -- Plaintiff has accurately paraphrased and/or quoted his interrogatory and Defendant Stewart's response. For the Court's reference, this interrogatory is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, p. 1, and Defendant Stewart's response is attached as Exhibit 2, p. 3. Plaintiff contends that the question was not answered. Defendant Stewart maintains that the actions taken with respect to Inmate Nester (the "Other RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES (DKT. 166)

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

Inmate") are not relevant and had no connection to the actions taken with respect to Plaintiff. As such, Defendant Stewart has answered the question. That Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the response does not mean that Defendant Stewart failed to answer. Item # 8 -- See response to Item # 7 above. See also Exhibit 1 at pp. 1-2 and Exhibit 2 at p. 3. Item #9 -- Plaintiff requested ADC policies regarding "in unit" isolation. Defendants are not aware of any policies specifically dealing with "in unit" isolation. Item #10 -- Plaintiff requested identification of the corrections officer who worked buildings 6 and 3 on November 5, 2002. See Plaintiff's Lodged Request for Production of Documents and Things (Exhibit 3). Defendants responded, "Defendants cannot identify the Corrections Officer described in this request. Staff assignment records are retained for four years." See Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production per Court Order dated May 5, 2008 (Exhibit 4.) Plaintiff is asking Defendants to identify one corrections officer who was on duty nearly six years ago. Defendants have no independent memory of who was on duty and can only rely on records, which no longer exist. Item #11 -- The requested correction has been made and was served on Plaintiff on June 23, 2008. Therefore, this discovery dispute is now moot. Item #12 -- Plaintiff submitted the following interrogatory to Defendant Carr: Plaintiff: Please identify any and all documents related to any complaint, grievance, criticism, censure, reprimand or rebuke toward Defendant Carr, prior to or subsequent to the incidents giving rise to these proceedings. Defendant Carr's Response: Objection. This interrogatory seeks irrelevant information and is not calculated to seek admissible evidence. This interrogatory is also overbroad as it is not limited to a specific time period. Defendant Carr was an employee of ADC from 1991 to 2006. This interrogatory seeks confidential personnel records, which may not be disclosed pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code § R2-5-105(F). Furthermore, to the extent that this interrogatory seeks grievances, it is overburdensome. 2
Document 170 Filed 06/23/2008 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI

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

Grievances are not sorted based on the ADC personnel involved. Thus, trying to find any and all grievances against Defendant Carr would require going through all of the inmate files for all of the locations in which she worked in her fifteen year tenure with ADC. See Defendant Carr's Amended Response to PL's (sic) Second Amended Interrogatories dated May 22, 2008 (Exhibit 5 at p. 3.) Defendant Carr has repeatedly denied any bias against homosexuals. Plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence to support his assertion that Defendant Carr "has a habit of putting homosexuals in the hole." As such, his request is nothing more than a fishing expedition. Item #13 -- Plaintiff submitted the following interrogatory to Defendant Carr: Plaintiff: Why did you request Plaintiff to be placed in unit isolation on November 5, 2002? Defendant Carr's Response: Objection. I do not recall making that request. If an inmate is placed in detention, it is at the direction of the Deputy Warden. Sergeants do not have that authority. (Exhibit 5 at p. 4.) As with items 7 and 8 above, Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the answer. However, Defendant Carr did in fact respond to the interrogatory. While she did not state a legal basis for the objection, it would be that the interrogatory assumes facts not in evidence, i.e. that she requested Plaintiff be paced in unit isolation. Item #14 -- Plaintiff submitted the following interrogatory to Defendant Carr: Plaintiff: How long, prior to your meeting on November 6, 2002, had you been working with these alleged "confidential informants"? Defendant Carr's Response: I am not absolutely certain; I and other supervisors had worked with these CIs approximately four years. (Exhibit 5 at p. 5.) Again, Plaintiff is dissatisfied with Defendant Carr's response. However, Defendant Carr can not state more than what she remembers. Item #15 -- Plaintiff requests an affidavit certifying that the requested documents were destroyed pursuant to policy. Undersigned counsel disputes that this was an item discussed between Plaintiff and herself during any of their telephonic conferences 3
Document 170 Filed 06/23/2008 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI

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

regarding discovery disputes or that Plaintiff ever requested such an affidavit in any previous discovery request or correspondence. In any event, Defendants dispute that such an affidavit is necessary. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23rd day of June, 2008. Terry Goddard Attorney General s/Michele L. Forney Michele L. Forney Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Original e-filed this 23rd day of June, 2008, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Arizona 401 West Washington Street, SPC 1 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118 Copy mailed the same date to: Timothy Lee Ward, #148256 ASPC - Eyman - SMU I P.O. Box 4000 Florence, AZ 85232 s/Colleen S. Jordan Secretary to: Michele L. Forney IDS04-0306/RSK:G04-20640 #230342

4
Document 170 Filed 06/23/2008 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI