Free Motion for Hearing or Conference - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

FHED LODGED
Timothy Lee Ward, 148256 ———-RECEVED ————COPY
1 Arizona State Prison Complex—Florence i
South Unit FEB 2 9 2008
2 Post Office Box 8400 CLERKlJS[mST
. _ 1 RICT COURT
3 Florence, Arizona 85232 8400 DSTRKH.OFAREONA
Plaintiff Pro—Per gy Z DEPUTY
4
5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
7
) Case No.: CIV—03—2l59—PHX—ROS (JRI)
8 Timothy Lee Ward, )
)
9 Plaintiff, >
) Motion to Renew Motion for Informal
AO vS· ) Telephonic Confrence q
) 1
ll Sgt. Carr, et.al., ) ‘
)
I2 Defendant . )
l3 Comes now, the Plaintiff, Timothy Lee Ward, pro—per, pursuant to Rule 37
14 (AJ and Local Rule 7.2 (J), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
I5 hereby requests this Honorable Court for an informal telephonic conference.
16 On January 22, 2008, the Defendants sent Plaintiff their response to his
17 Request for Production of Documents and Responses to Plaintiff’s
IB Interrogatories to both Defendants. There are numerous objections as well as
19 a few interrogatories that were not properly answered. On January 28, 2008,
20 the Plaintiff sent a letter to the Attorneys for the Defendants requesting a
2l telephonic conference to discuss the issues. On February 4, 2008, Plaintiff
22 filed a “Motion for Informal Telephonic Conference". The Court ruled that
23 Plaintiff did not give the Defendants ample time in order to respond to his
24 letter, and denied his request.
25
—l— -
Case 2:O3—cv—O2159-ROS-JRI Document 124 Fnled O2/29/2008 1 Page 1 of 4

l On February 5, 2008, the Defendants took the Plaintiff’s Deposition. At
2 the conclusion of the deposition, the attorney for the Defendant’s discussed
3 the issues with the Plaintiff. At that time the Plaintiff agreed to give the
4 Defendants an additional two weeks to sort through the paperwork and decide
5 if they were going to change any responses.
6 On February l4, 2008, the attorneys for the Defendants wrote Plaintiff
7 and corrected one document error and told plaintiff that there would be some
8 additional documents forthcoming. In the same letter the Defendants stand by
9 certain objections that are the basis for this motion.
l0 The areas of conflict are:
ll A. Plaintiff’s A.I.M.’s Documents- Plaintiff intends to show this Court
l2 during Summary Judgment and possible a Jury that the Plaintiff does not cause
l3 problems within DOC. This information will be reflected throughout the .
l4 A.I.M.’s system logs.
l5 B. Inmate Chad Daniels A.I.M.’s File- Defendants contend that Inmate
16 Daniels A.I.M.’s file is not relevant to this case. Inmate Daniels was the
l7 Cellmate of the Plaintiff. He is the one that did not get moved, yet the
IB Plaintiff did. He also kept his job, where Defendant Carr terminated
l9 Plaintiff. His records will show his movement history and WIPP history
20 during the time in question. Defendants originally informally agreed to file
2l these documents for in—camera review by this Court. Now the Defendants are
22 stating they are not relevant, and object on the grounds of prison security
23 and confidentiality. The Plaintiff still agrees to filing these documents
24 with the Court for in—camera review.
25 8
Case 2:03-cv—O2159-ROS-JRI Documénf 124 Filed O2/29/2008 Page 2 of 4

1 C. Inmate Oscar Nester A.I.M.’s File- Defendants contend that Inmate
2 Nester’s A.I.M.’s file is not relevant to this case. Inmate Nester was the
3 Cellmate of the Plaintiff’s while in CDU. He is the one that got moved back
4 to Rynning Unit, even after a finding of Guilty of a Major Disciplinary
5 Action for threats to Staff, yet the Plaintiff was never issued a
6 Disciplinary Action yet he was sent to SMU I. His records will show his
7 movement history and disciplinary history during the time in question.
8 Defendants originally informally agreed to file these documents for in-camera
9 review by this Court. Now the Defendants are stating they are not relevant,
10 and object on the grounds of prison security and confidentiality. The
11 Plaintiff still agrees to filing these documents with the Court for in—camera
12 review.
13 D. The Defendants object to the production of Movement sheets for
14 Inmates Daniels and Nester based on their theory of relevancy and also object
15 on the grounds of Prison Security and Confidentiality. The Parties has again
16 informally agreed to file these documents in-camera with the Court. Now the
17 Defendants stand by their objection.
18 E. Interrogatories of Defendant Stewart- Plaintiff asked Defendant
19 Stewart why he allowed Inmate Nester to be returned to Rynning Unit after a
20 finding of Guilty on a Major Disciplinary Action for Threats to Staff, yet he
21 requested the Plaintiff be sent to SMU I. Defendant Stewart responded that
22 he did not see how the two cases correlated. On February 5, 2008, Defendant
23 Stewart's Attorney stated that the question was properly answered. Plaintiff
24 does not agree.
25
Case 2:03-cv—O2159-ROS-JRI D0cumeF1T124 Filed O2/29/2008 I Page 3 of 4

W , ·
1 F. Interrogatories of Defendant Stewart- Plaintiff asked Defendant
2 Stewart why he requested a facility override to place Plaintiff in SMU I, yet
3 he did not request an override for Inmate Nester. Defendant Stewart
4 responded that he did not see how the two cases correlated. On February 5,
5 2008, Defendant Stewart's Attorney stated that the question could be answered
6 as far as why the override was requested. Yet, in the Defendants Attorney’s
7 letter dated February 14, 2008, she states “No further response is
8 necessary". Again the Plaintiff does not agree.
9 Wherefore, the Plaintiff, requests an informal Telephonic Conference
10 with the Magistrate Judge as well as the Attorneys for the Defendants so that
11 a solution or an agreement can be reached prior to filing a motion to compel.
12 0
13
14 · · Tu
Respectfully submitted this 3£> day of February, 2008
15
16 Timothy Lee Ward
Plaintiff Pro-Per
17
18 Copies of the foregoing mailed this i)$T1+ day of February, 2008, to:
19 Office of the Clerk
United States District Court °//’/
20 401 West Washington Street, SPC—l
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2118
21
Ms. Michele L. Forney, Attorney
22 Office of the Attorney General
1275 West Washington
23 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997
Attorneys for Defendants
24
25
Case 2:03-cv—O2159-ROS-JRI Documénf 124 Filed O2/29/2008 Page 4 of 4

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

Document 124

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 1 of 4

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

Document 124

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 2 of 4

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

Document 124

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 3 of 4

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

Document 124

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 4 of 4