Opinion
CV-21-00189-TUC-RM
10-31-2023
Ricardo James Jefferson, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Nicholas Thibault, Defendant.
ORDER
Honorable Rosemary Marquez, United States District Judge
Plaintiff, who was then confined in the Cochise County Jail and is now confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson, brought this pro se civil rights proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 8.) In the remaining claim in this case, Plaintiff alleges Defendant forcibly injected him with an unknown substance in the course of his arrest. (Doc. 9 at 4, 9; see also Doc. 8 at 11.) Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Subpoena Defendant(s) Bodycam/Dashcam Images (Doc. 81), to which Defendant responded (Doc. 84); Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Upon Non-Party Witnesses (Doc. 83), to which Defendant responded (Doc. 85); and Defendant's Motion to Allow for Physical Filing of Non-Electronic Exhibit (Doc. 86).
In his Motion to Subpoena Defendant(s) Bodycam/Dashcam Images, Plaintiff requests that this Court subpoena the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Cochise County Sheriff's Office for dashcam and bodycam video. (Doc. 81 at 1, 3.) Plaintiff claims he has “newly discovered evidence” that will show that “the person responsible for actually injecting Plaintiff is Mr. Williamson,” not Defendant. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff avers he requires the video “to add clarity to this case.” (Id. at 3.)
In response, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not offered compelling reasons to support his subpoena request because Plaintiff has not identified the “newly discovered evidence” or disclosed it. (Doc. 84 at 1.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's Motion should also be denied because discovery concluded on April 3, 2023, and Plaintiff has not requested an extension of discovery nor provided good cause for reopening discovery. (Id. at 2.) Defendant notes that he has already produced the dashcam and bodycam video in his possession, and Plaintiff's filings indicate that Plaintiff possesses many hours of video. (Id.) Finally, Defendant contends that Plaintiff is not seeking the video for any reason related to prosecuting the case against Defendant because Plaintiff has acknowledged that Defendant did not inject him. (Id. at 2-3.)
Per the Court's Scheduling Order, discovery closed on April 3, 2023. (Doc. 24.) As Defendant notes, neither party has filed a request to extend discovery, and Plaintiff has not shown good cause to reopen discovery. Plaintiff does not indicate what the “newly discovered evidence” is. Defendant has produced the dashcam and bodycam video in his possession, and Plaintiff possesses relevant video. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Subpoena Defendant(s) Bodycam/Dashcam Images (Doc. 81).
In Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Upon Non-Party Witnesses, Plaintiff requests “leave of Court to issue subpoenas upon” the Cochise County Sheriff's Office, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, and Benson Hospital. (Doc. 83.) Plaintiff seeks the subpoenas to “recover any and all electronic, digital, or surveillance equipment (including photos)” pertaining to his criminal case in Cochise County Superior Court, Case No. CR202000473. (Id.)
Plaintiff appears to have filed four copies of the same motion. (Doc. 83 at 1-4.)
In his Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Upon Non-Party Witnesses, Plaintiff appears to argue that the discovery deadline has been extended. (See Doc. 83 at 1.) In support of this proposition, Plaintiff cites Defendant's Motion to Extend Deadline to File Dispositive Motion (Doc. 78). While the Court extended the parties' dispositive motion deadline (Doc. 79 at 9), it has not extended the discovery deadline.
In his Response, Defendant avers that Plaintiff has not justified his late discovery request. (Doc. 85 at 1.) Defendant reasserts his arguments in response to Plaintiff's Motion to Subpoena Defendant(s) Bodycam/Dashcam Images. (Id. at 2.) Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff is “attempting to re-litigate his criminal case,” and Plaintiff's subpoena request is unrelated to the excessive force claim against Defendant. (Id.)
The Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Upon Non-Party Witnesses for the same reasons described above. Chiefly, discovery closed on April 3, 2023 (Doc. 24), neither party has filed a request to extend the discovery deadline, and Plaintiff has not shown good cause to reopen discovery.
In Defendant's Motion to Allow for Physical Filing of Non-Electronic Exhibit, Defendant requests leave of Court to file video portions of the August 5, 2020 incident that is the subject of Plaintiff's claims in support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 86 at 1.) Defendant states that the video recordings show Plaintiff's and Defendant's actions regarding the incident alleged by Plaintiff. (Id.) The District
Court of Arizona's Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(N)(2) provides that “[a] party may seek leave of the court to allow the non-electronic filing of exhibits and other documents when they are not convertible to electronic form (e.g., videotapes, maps, etc.) or are extremely large.” Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion to Allow for Physical Filing of Non-Electronic Exhibit (Doc. 86).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Subpoena Defendant(s) Bodycam/Dashcam Images (Doc. 81) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Upon Non-Party Witnesses (Doc. 83) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Allow for Physical Filing of Non-Electronic Exhibit (Doc. 86) is granted. Defendant may file the exhibits identified in his Motion in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section II(N)(2) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual for the District of Arizona.