DONAHOE v. ARPAIO, CV 10-02756-PHX-NVW (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20120601899
Visitors: 8
Filed: May 31, 2012
Latest Update: May 31, 2012
Summary: ORDER ( Applicable only in CV 11-00116) NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff Conley Wolfswinkel and Defendant Maricopa County's Joint Summary of Discovery Dispute (Doc. 459), which will be treated as a motion to compel discovery by Plaintiff Wolfswinkel. The County is the proper defendant liable for various claims alleged regarding the conduct of the Sheriff and members of his office and the former County Attorney and members of his office, who are also defendants in
Summary: ORDER ( Applicable only in CV 11-00116) NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff Conley Wolfswinkel and Defendant Maricopa County's Joint Summary of Discovery Dispute (Doc. 459), which will be treated as a motion to compel discovery by Plaintiff Wolfswinkel. The County is the proper defendant liable for various claims alleged regarding the conduct of the Sheriff and members of his office and the former County Attorney and members of his office, who are also defendants in t..
More
ORDER
(Applicable only in CV 11-00116)
NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Conley Wolfswinkel and Defendant Maricopa County's Joint Summary of Discovery Dispute (Doc. 459), which will be treated as a motion to compel discovery by Plaintiff Wolfswinkel.
The County is the proper defendant liable for various claims alleged regarding the conduct of the Sheriff and members of his office and the former County Attorney and members of his office, who are also defendants in this action.1 Payne v. Arpaio, 2009 WL 3756679 (D. Ariz. 2009). "Each county of the State, now or hereafter organized, shall be a body politic and corporate." Ariz. Const. art. 11 § 1. As "a party" the County is responsible for obtaining and producing discovery within the County. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). Any dissonances within the County do not free the County from its obligations to give discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If the County cannot resolve its dissonances well enough to meet its discovery obligations, it will not mean that opposing parties are burdened. Rather, it will mean that the County is subject to sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Wolfswinkel's motion to compel discovery (Doc. 459) is granted. The County shall give the discovery demanded, failing which Plaintiff Wolfswinkel may seek further sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
FootNotes
1. As defendants Thomas and Aubuchon are no longer members of the County Attorney's Office, no current member of the office remains as a defendant.
Source: Leagle
