Donahoe et al v. Arpaio et al

Filing 460

ORDER: Plaintiff Wolfswinkel's 459 motion to compel discovery is granted. The County shall give the discovery demanded, failing which Plaintiff Wolfswinkel may seek further sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 5/31/12. (NKS)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Gary Donahoe and husband and wife, 10 Cherie Donahoe, No. CV 10-02756-PHX-NVW CONSOLIDATED WITH: Plaintiffs, 11 vs. 12 Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy Chief David Hendershott and Anna Hendershott, husband and wife; Peter Spaw and Jane Doe Spaw, husband and wife; Maricopa County, a municipal entity; Jon Does I-X; Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations I-V; and White Partnerships IV, 13 14 15 16 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 Sandra Wilson and Paul Wilson, husband and wife, 21 CV 10-02758-PHX-NVW Plaintiffs, 22 vs. 23 Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., 24 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 -1  1 2 3 4 5 6 Conley D. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Brandon D. Wolswinkel, a single man; Ashton A. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Vanderbilt Farms, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; ABCDW, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Stone Canyon, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Vistoso Partners, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and W Harquahala, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; 7 8 9 10 Plaintiffs, vs. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 Mary Rose Wilcox and Earl Wilcox, wife and husband, 16 17 18 vs. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and Kathleen Stapley, husband and wife, 21 22 23 CV 11-00902-PHX-NVW ORDER 19 20 CV 11-00473-PHX-NVW Plaintiffs, 14 15 CV 11-00116-PHX-NVW Plaintiffs, (Applicable only in CV 11-00116) vs. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. 24 Before the Court is Plaintiff Conley Wolfswinkel and Defendant Maricopa 25 County’s Joint Summary of Discovery Dispute (Doc. 459), which will be treated as a 26 motion to compel discovery by Plaintiff Wolfswinkel. 27 28 -2  1 The County is the proper defendant liable for various claims alleged regarding the 2 conduct of the Sheriff and members of his office and the former County Attorney and 3 members of his office, who are also defendants in this action.1 Payne v. Arpaio, 2009 4 WL 3756679 (D. Ariz. 2009). “Each county of the State, now or hereafter organized, 5 shall be a body politic and corporate.” Ariz. Const. art. 11 § 1. As “a party” the County 6 is responsible for obtaining and producing discovery within the County. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 26(a)(1)(A). 8 obligations to give discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If the County 9 cannot resolve its dissonances well enough to meet its discovery obligations, it will not 10 mean that opposing parties are burdened. Rather, it will mean that the County is subject 11 to sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Any dissonances within the County do not free the County from its 12 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Wolfswinkel’s motion to compel discovery (Doc. 13 459) is granted. The County shall give the discovery demanded, failing which Plaintiff 14 Wolfswinkel may seek further sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Dated this 31st day of May, 2012. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 As defendants Thomas and Aubuchon are no longer members of the County Attorney’s Office, no current member of the office remains as a defendant. 28 -3 

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?