Reza v. Pearce et al

Filing 83

ORDER granting Defendant's 78 Motion for Protective Order. Plaintiff is prohibited from deposing defendant concerning his relationship with JT Ready. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 7/30/2012.(LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Salvador Reza,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Russell Pearce,
13
Defendant.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV 11-01170-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
16

The court has before it defendant's motion for protective order (doc. 78). We granted

17

defendant's motion to expedite and ordered plaintiff to file a response no later than 3pm on

18

July 30, 2012 (doc. 81). Plaintiff filed a late response at 5pm (doc. 82).

19

This action arises out of plaintiff's exclusion from the Arizona State Senate building

20

on February 24, 2011 at the direction of defendant, former Senate President. Plaintiff, who

21

alleged in his complaint that defendant is a racist, claims that defendant banned him from the

22

Senate building in part due to his Mexican ancestry.

23

Defendant seeks a protective order preventing plaintiff from deposing him about his

24

alleged relationship with JT Ready, an individual who defendant describes as "a Neo-Nazi,

25

white supremacist, mass-murderer of women and children." Mot. at 1. Defendant argues

26

that any relationship between him and Ready is not relevant, and that this line of questioning

27

is intended to annoy, embarrass, and oppress him. Specifically, defendant argues that

28

plaintiff will improperly attempt to associate him with JT Ready in order to harm his

1

reputation and hurt his candidacy for the Arizona State Senate.

2

A party can obtain discovery "that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed.

3

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery is relevant even if it would ultimately be inadmissible at trial

4

if it is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. Even if

5

discovery is relevant, we may issue a protective order "to protect a party or person from

6

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Id. 26(c). The party

7

seeking the protective order has the burden to demonstrate good cause "by demonstrating

8

harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery." Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d

9

1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004).

10

Defendant argues that his alleged relationship with JT Ready is not relevant to

11

plaintiff's claims that defendant banned him from the State Senate building because of his

12

Mexican ancestry. If defendant associated with a Neo-Nazi murderer, details about this

13

relationship may make it slightly more likely that defendant himself was racist. We do not

14

see how defendant's relationship with Ready could be relevant to plaintiff's claims for any

15

other reason, and plaintiff does not argue otherwise. Despite plaintiff's argument that this

16

evidence would be highly probative of defendant's racism, it is highly likely that the evidence

17

would be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Evidence that connects defendant

18

to a Neo-Nazi murderer would almost certainly inflame the jury, causing prejudice that

19

would substantially outweigh its minimal probity. Although Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P. does

20

not require relevant information to be admissible in order to be discoverable, it does require

21

that the discovery be "reasonably calculated" to lead to admissible evidence. We conclude

22

that questioning defendant about his relationship with Ready does not meet this standard.

23

Moreover, plaintiff acknowledges that he has already discovered evidence showing

24

that defendant was a "friend, sponsor, and mentor" to Ready. Response at 2. We must limit

25

the extent of discovery sought if we determine that the discovery sought is cumulative,

26

duplicative, or can be obtained from another source. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). Plaintiff

27

has not argued that his line of questioning would reveal new information about defendant's

28

relationship to Ready. Finally, plaintiff argues that defendant might admit during his
-2-

1

deposition that he agreed with Ready's racist opinions. Plaintiff may question defendant

2

about his views on race without getting into the issue of defendant's relationship with Ready.

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant's motion for protective order

4

(doc. 78). Plaintiff is prohibited from deposing defendant concerning his relationship with

5

JT Ready.

6

DATED this 30th day of July, 2012.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-