Donahoe et al v. Arpaio et al
Filing
572
ORDER that the Maricopa County's #514 Amended Motion for Reconsideration is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs' #565 Motion to Set Aside is granted. The Wolfswinkel plaintiffs are given leave without further order of the Court to file an amended complaint by September 7, 2012, to name Montgomery as a defendant in this action. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 8/28/2012. (See attached PDF for complete details.)(LFIG)
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,
vs.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,
husband and wife; et al.,
Defendants.
24
Before the Court is Maricopa County’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration and
25
Modification of May 31, 2012 (Doc. 514) and the Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set
26
Aside the Court’s May 26, 2011 Order Dismissing William Montgomery as a Party-
27
Defendant (Doc. 565). The County seeks a modification of this Court’s May 31 order
28
-2
1
which required Maricopa County to produce documents in the possession of the
2
Maricopa County Attorney’s office that are responsive to discovery requests from the
3
Wolfswinkel plaintiffs. The County Attorney, Bill Montgomery, has taken the position
4
that he is not required to produce the documents under his control to the County, and that
5
as a non-party to this suit, he is not compelled to cooperate with the Wolfswinkel
6
plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Nonetheless, after he was served with a subpoena for the
7
documents by the County’s attorney, Montgomery complied with the subpoena and
8
produce the requested documents.
9
effectively moot.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is
10
Nonetheless, it is likely that the County Attorney’s office will need to cooperate in
11
this litigation because the former County Attorney, Andrew Thomas, is a defendant
12
related to actions he took in his capacity as County Attorney and documents in the
13
County Attorney’s office will likely need to be produced in discovery. The Wolfswinkel
14
plaintiffs initially named Montgomery as a defendant in this action in his official capacity
15
as County Attorney (Doc. 1 in CV11-0116).
16
complaint on the basis that he did not take office until after the alleged wrongdoing
17
underlying the complaint occurred (Doc. 18 in CV11-0116).
18
Montgomery’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 55 in CV10-2756), the Wolfswinkel plaintiffs
19
acknowledged that they did not seek any relief against Montgomery personally, but that
20
in order to recover damages for actions taken by Thomas in his official capacity as
21
County Attorney, they were suing Montgomery in his official capacity to hold the County
22
responsible for the actions of Thomas, the former office holder.
Montgomery moved to dismiss the
In their response to
23
The Court granted Montgomery’s motion to dismiss on the basis that naming
24
Montgomery was redundant to naming the County (Doc. 70 in CV10-2756). However,
25
because Montgomery has asserted that as a non-party, he is not required to cooperate
26
with the discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, the efficiency
27
of dismissing Montgomery is no longer present. The Court has no doubt that all of
28
Maricopa County’s officers are responsible for complying with the County’s discovery
-3
1
obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
Attorney bear the County’s responsibility and will render the County liable for sanctions
3
for not meeting that responsibility. The Court will therefore grant the Wolfswinkel
4
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside the Court’s May 26, 2011 Order Dismissing William
5
Montgomery as a Party-Defendant (Doc. 565) and give the Wolfswinkel plaintiffs leave
6
to amend their complaint to name Montgomery as a defendant in this action, thus
7
avoiding this conflict. The further amended complaint must be served upon the County
8
Attorney, and any challenge to the further amended complaint other than challenges
9
concerning process will be summarily denied.
10
11
Officers like the County
IT IS ORDERED that Maricopa County’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration
and Modification of May 31, 2012 (Doc. 514) is denied.
12
IT IF FURTHER ORDERED that the Wolfswinkel Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside
13
the Court’s May 26, 2011 Order Dismissing William Montgomery as a Party-Defendant
14
(Doc. 565) is granted. The Wolfswinkel plaintiffs are given leave without further order
15
of the Court to file an amended complaint by September 7, 2012, to name Montgomery
16
as a defendant in this action. The further amended complaint must be served upon the
17
County Attorney, and any challenge to the further amended complaint other than
18
challenges concerning process will be summarily denied.
19
Dated this 28th day of August, 2012.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4
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?