United States District Court, D. Arizona
G. Campbell United States District Judge.
action arises out of Plaintiff's arrest, indictment, and
pre-trial incarceration for the much-publicized Interstate-10
freeway shootings. Plaintiff asserts multiple claims for
relief, including false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious
prosecution, negligence, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Doc. 8. Defendants include both state-and
county-level entities and persons.
moves to compel document production and deposition testimony
from Defendants Maricopa County and Maricopa County Attorney
William Montgomery, and from several deputy county attorneys
who were involved in the criminal case. The parties placed a
joint conference call to the Court regarding this issue on
June 1, 2018. Doc. 103. After hearing the parties'
positions, the Court directed them to file memoranda on work
product and privilege issues, which they did. Docs. 113, 119.
Finding the memoranda insufficient to resolve the issues, the
Court ordered the parties to file additional memoranda
addressing specific topics. Doc. 121. The parties have
provided the additional briefing. Docs. 126, 130. After
reviewing them carefully, and for the reasons that follow,
the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to compel.
original memorandum sought information regarding (1) the use
of license-plate readers during the criminal investigation,
(2) the use of a honeypot website to identify suspects, and
(3) the delayed disclosure of an exculpatory witness
statement. Doc. 113 at 2-3. In the order that followed, the
Court explained the deficiency of these general topics:
Plaintiff provides no detail concerning the documents he
seeks or the questions he wants to ask in the upcoming
depositions, nor does he provide the privilege log he is
attacking. He identifies three broad issues, but provides no
more specificity. Privilege and work product issues generally
must be decided on a document-specific or question-specific
basis. Although that level of detail may not be necessary
here, the Court needs more than a general assertion that
discovery should be permitted on three broad issues.
supplemental memorandum identifies six categories of
information. Doc. 126 at 2-3. He seeks to depose Defendant
Montgomery and two former deputy county attorneys about the
i) Basis for Montgomery's Press Conference
Statements. The facts available to Montgomery at the
time of his public statements about Plaintiff.
ii) Basis for Mental Impressions of [DPS criminalist]
Kalkowski. The knowledge, consideration, and
internal communications about prosecutors' mental
impressions on subjects they have disclosed involving
iii) Communications with DPS[.] All
communications with DPS employees involving the transmittal
and disclosure of evidence.
iv) Pre-Arrest Intra-Office Communications.
Communications between Montgomery and other DCA's about
the decision to arrest Plaintiff.
126 at 2-3 (emphasis in original).
also seeks production of the following documents:
v) Documents Available to Montgomery.
Communications that comprise the totality of circumstances
known to Montgomery in dismissing the ...