Dennison #143931 v. Ryan et al
Filing
52
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 29 Motion to Compel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no further discovery motions shall be filed bythe parties without express leave of the Court. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 1/16/15.(LAD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Andre Almond Dennison,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-13-01925-PHX-SPL (ESW)
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
Plaintiff is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman. He filed a pro
16
se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), alleging three claims for
17
relief against Defendant Ryan.
18
In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan denied Plaintiff a diet
19
consistent with his religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Land Use and
20
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
21
Plaintiff on a vegan diet inconsistent with the tenets of Plaintiff’s Seventh-Day Adventist
22
faith. Plaintiff asserts that his faith requires a diet consisting of fresh fruit, vegetables,
23
eggs, grains, legumes, nuts, and dairy products.
24
provide a proper diet substantially burdens the practice of Plaintiff’s religion. (Doc. 1)
Plaintiff states that Defendant has placed
Plaintiff argues that the failure to
25
In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan has violated Plaintiff’s First
26
Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion due to the same factual basis as set
27
forth in Count One. (Doc. 1)
28
In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan violated Plaintiff’s equal
1
protection rights because similarly situated inmates of other religions receive diets
2
consistent with their religious beliefs. (Doc. 1)
3
On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel (Doc. 29). Plaintiff seeks
4
more complete responses to requests for interrogatories and production propounded on
5
Defendant on May 15, 2014. The parties first attempted to resolve the issues pending by
6
good faith personal consultation over the phone and in writing. Defendant’s Response to
7
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 40) was filed November 12, 2014. Plaintiff’s Reply
8
(Doc. 44) was filed December 2, 2014. The matter is deemed submitted for decision.
9
The law provides that a party may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged
10
matter that is relevant to a party’s claim.
The relevant information need not be
11
admissible at trial if it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
12
evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). All discovery is, however, subject to reasonable
13
limitations by the Court when “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
14
outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,
15
the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the
16
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
17
18
I. INTERROGATORIES
19
No. 16: “How Many Jews, Who Receive Kosher Meals, Are There In ADC?”
20
Defendant is able to provide the number of inmates who have established a
21
sincere, religious reason for requesting a Kosher diet and received a Kosher diet while
22
incarcerated at the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC).
23
tracked and relevant. The Court orders Defendant to disclose the number of inmates who
24
have established a sincere, religious reason for requesting Kosher meals and have
25
received them from January 2013 to the present. The Defendant also tracks the number
26
of inmates who identify Judaism as their religious preference.
27
recognized tenets inherent in those faiths. Judaism is one such faith. Therefore, the
28
number of inmates who identify themselves with Judaism is relevant. The Court orders
-2-
This information is
Various faiths have
1
the Defendant to disclose the number of inmates who have identified Judaism as their
2
religious preference from January 2013 to the present. It is not necessary, however, to
3
hand count the overlap of these two fields of data. The burden of such an exercise is
4
outweighed by the minimal probative value of the data sought. Because presumably
5
religious diets offered by ADC are not restricted to a particular religion, and because the
6
Defendant admits that some inmates that identify as Jewish also receive Kosher diets, the
7
overlap number is not relevant. It is further undisputed that the cost to Defendant per
8
meal type offered is not related to or impacted by the number of people who request each
9
meal type or eat each meal type.
10
11
Therefore, the Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part as set forth
above as to Interrogatory No. 16.
12
13
14
No. 17:
“How Many Jewish Prisoners Are Receiving Kosher Meals At
Rynning Unit?”
15
For the reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis of Interrogatory No. 16,
16
It is ordered that Defendant provide the number of inmates at Rynning Unit who
17
have established a sincere, religious reason for requesting a Kosher diet while
18
incarcerated and received a Kosher meal plan from January 2013 to the present.
19
It is further ordered that Defendant provide the number of inmates at Rynning Unit
20
who have identified Judaism as their religious preference from January 2013 to the
21
present.
22
Interrogatory No. 17.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part as to
23
24
25
No. 18:
“How Many Halaal practicing Muslims Are Receiving Halaal
Compliant Meals in ADC?”
26
The Defendant has indicated that ADC tracks religious preference and meal plan.
27
There is no meal plan designated as “Halaal Compliant.” However, Defendant tracks
28
individuals who identify their religious preference as Muslim. There are also individuals
-3-
1
who express a sincere, religious reason for requesting Kosher and/or vegan meals. For
2
the reasons set forth in the Court’s analysis of Interrogatory No. 16,
3
It is ordered that Defendant provide the number of inmates from January 2013 to
4
the present who are on each tracked meal plan and the number of inmates who identify
5
their religious preference as Muslim. The Motion to Compel is denied in part and
6
granted in part as to Interrogatory No. 18.
7
No. 19:
8
9
Compliant Meals At Rynning Unit?”
The Motion to Compel is denied in part and granted in part for the reasons
10
11
How Many Halaal Practicing Muslims Are Receiving Halaal
previously set forth herein.
12
It is ordered that the Defendant provide the number of inmates at Rynning Unit
13
who have identified Muslim as their religious preference from January 2013 to the
14
present.
15
It is further ordered that Defendant provide the number of inmates at Rynning Unit
16
who have established a sincere, religious reason for requesting a Kosher diet, a vegan
17
diet, and any other tracked religious diet while incarcerated and received such meals from
18
January 2013 to the present.
19
No. 20: “How Many Actual Vegan Prisoners, Not Those Put Onto The Vegan
20
21
Diet From Other Religions, Are There in the ADC?”
22
The Court sustains Defendant’s objection to this interrogatory. The Court has
23
ordered Defendant to provide the number of prisoners who claim a religious preference
24
for the Muslim and Jewish faiths and the number of prisoners who receive a specific diet
25
(Kosher, vegan, or other) for religious reasons from January 2013 to the present. For the
26
reasons previously set forth in the Court’s rulings contained herein, as well as reasons set
27
forth in Defendant’s objections, the Motion to Compel is denied as to Interrogatory No.
28
20.
-4-
1
2
3
No. 21: “How Many Actual Vegans, Not Those Put Onto The Diet From
Other Religions, Are There At Rynning Unit?”
The Court sustains the Defendant’s objection to this interrogatory. See also the
4
Court’s ruling on Interrogatory No. 20.
5
The Motion to Compel is denied as to
Interrogatory No. 21.
6
II. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
7
8
No. 1: “All Complete Arizona Department Of Corrections (“ADC”) Food
9
Service Contracts With Canteen Correctional Services and Trinity Services Group,
10
Inc. Governing 2007 To Present, Including All Amendments, Extensions,
11
Memorandums,
12
Attachments.”
Solicitations,
Price
Sheets,
Offers
and
Acceptance,
And
13
The Court finds the food service contracts from 2007 to the present requested are
14
relevant to the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Motion to Compel is granted as
15
to Request No. 1.
16
17
No. 2:
“ADC Position Papers, Memos, And Other Documents,
18
Recommending, Approving, And/Or Authorizing Ovo-Lacto-Vegetarian, Lacto-
19
Vegetarian, And Kosher Diets.”
20
The Court finds that the documentation requested is relevant to the issues raised in
21
Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Motion to Compel is granted. The Defendant has indicated
22
that all such documents found in Defendant’s possession have been provided to the
23
Plaintiff. The Defendant has no obligation to obtain documents for the Plaintiff from
24
third parties.
25
26
No. 3: “All Documents, Memoranda, and Position Papers Recommending,
27
Approving, And/Or Authorizing The Rescission Of The Ovo-Lacto-Vegetarian
28
Diets.”
-5-
1
2
The Court finds that the information sought is relevant to the issues raised by
Plaintiff’s claims.
3
It is ordered granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Request No. 3.
4
Defendant has a continuing obligation to produce any documentation in existence in their
5
possession responsive to No. 3. The parties have given the Court no reason to believe
6
Defendant has not done so.
7
8
9
10
11
No. 6:
“All Restricted Diet Orders and Diet Cards Issued Regarding
Dennison From 2006 to May 2008.”
The Court finds that the information sought is relevant to the issues raised by
Plaintiff’s claims.
12
It is ordered granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Request No. 6.
13
Defendant has a continuing obligation to produce any documentation in existence in their
14
possession responsive to No. 6. The parties have given the Court no reason to believe
15
Defendant has not done so.
16
17
18
19
20
No. 7: Diet Reference and Food Service Technical Manuals from 2008 to
Present.”
The Court finds that the information sought is relevant to the issues raised by
Plaintiff’s claims.
21
It is ordered granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Request No. 7.
22
Defendant has a continuing obligation to produce any documentation in existence in their
23
possession responsive to No. 7. The parties have given the Court no reason to believe
24
Defendant has not done so. Defendant’s objection regarding redactions for security
25
reasons are sustained by the Court.
26
27
No. 8: “All Diet Load Sheets From 2007 to Present.”
28
The Court finds that the information sought is relevant to the issues raised by
-6-
1
Plaintiff’s claims.
2
It is ordered granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Request No. 8.
3
Defendant has a continuing obligation to produce any documentation in existence in their
4
possession responsive to No. 8. The parties have given the Court no reason to believe
5
Defendant has not done so.
6
7
No. 11: “Full Name And Last Known Business And Home Address And
8
Phone Number Of The Following:
9
Chaplain Vicklund, ADC Chaplain Miser, ADC Chaplain Franklin, Ms. Sneed, Mr.
10
Mike Linderman, John Thompson, ADC
Sneed, Ms. Pond, and Laura Donnelly.”
11
Defendant’s objection is sustained as to current employees of ADC. Defendant’s
12
objections as to former employees of ADC who will not be represented by the Attorney
13
General’s Office should he/she be called to offer testimony is overruled. Should any
14
former employee listed not be represented if called to testify or provide sworn statements,
15
the last known address shall be filed under seal with the Court for purposes of the
16
issuance of a subpoena or the necessity of future sworn statements.
17
18
Defendant’s objection is sustained regarding all individuals not in the employ of
ADC. The Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part as to Request No. 11.
19
20
21
22
No. 19:
“All Pricing Documents Utilized By Canteen/Trinity For Each
Service They Sell.”
Defendant’s objection to this request is sustained. The Plaintiff seeks information
23
from the Defendant which is in the possession and control of a third party.
24
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is denied as to Request No. 19.
25
CONCLUSION
26
27
Accordingly,
28
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 29) is granted as to
-7-
1
2
3
Interrogatory Numbers 16 through 19, subject to the limitations as set forth herein.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 29) is denied as to
Interrogatory Numbers 20 and 21.
4
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 29) is granted as to
5
Request for Production Numbers 1 through 3, 6, 8, and 11, subject to the limitations as
6
set forth herein.
7
8
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 29) is denied as to
Request for Production Number 19.
9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no further discovery motions shall be filed by
10
the parties without express leave of the Court. In the event of a discovery dispute, the
11
parties are ordered to confer as required by Rule 37(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. If the parties in
12
good faith are unable to resolve their discovery dispute, the parties shall jointly call
13
chambers of the assigned Magistrate Judge and schedule a telephonic Discovery Dispute
14
Conference. All discovery disputes shall be discussed at the Conference. Only after
15
participating in the Court Conference and with express prior permission of the Magistrate
16
Judge shall any party file a discovery motion absent extraordinary circumstances and
17
good cause shown.
18
Dated this 16th day of January, 2015.
19
20
21
Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
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?