Opinion
No. CV 10-02756-PHX-NVW CV 10-02758-PHX-NVW CV 11-00116-PHX-NVW CV 11-00473-PHX-NVW CV 11-00902-PHX-NVW
05-31-2012
Gary Donahoe and Cherie Donahoe, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy Chief David Hendershott and Anna Hendershott, husband and wife; Peter Spaw and Jane Doe Spaw, husband and wife; Maricopa County, a municipal entity; Jon Does I-X; Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations I-V; and White Partnerships I-V, Defendants. Sandra Wilson and Paul Wilson, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Ashton A. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Vanderbilt Farms, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; ABCDW, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Stone Canyon, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Vistoso Partners, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and W Harquahala, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Mary Rose Wilcox and Earl Wilcox, wife and husband, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants. Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and Kathleen Stapley, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Conley D. Wolfswinkel, a single man; Brandon D. Wolswinkel, a single man;
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. 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.
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.
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.
____________
Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge