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)

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