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-