Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Andrew Thomas M ARICOPA C OUNTY A TTORNEY Daniel R. Brenden, Bar #016395 Mary C. Cronin, Bar #010816 Division of County Counsel 222 North Central Avenue, Ste. 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206 (602) 506-8541 Eileen Dennis GilBride, Bar #009220 J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Ste. 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 263-1700 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Medlin, Peterson and Ramsey IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Scott M. McNair, Plaintiff, vs. Maricopa County Department of Transportation; Kenneth Medlin; Terry Peterson; Jennipher Ramsey; State of Arizona Personnel Board, Defendants. Defendants respectfully request the Court to order Plaintiff not to attempt to serve subpoenas, or to conduct discovery, or to contact former or current County personnel directly. On October 31, 2005, County counsel Dan Brenden received a copy of an email that Plaintiff had sent to Mr. Rick Romley (the former Maricopa County Attorney), asking Mr. Romley for an address at which he could be served with a subpoena as a "witness" in this case. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto. The request and the direct contact is inappropriate for several reasons. First, the discovery cutoff passed eight months ago, on February 28, 2005. Plaintiff should not DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY ATTEMPTS No. CIV03-2119-PHX-NVW

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 80

Filed 11/01/2005

Page 1 of 4

be attempting to conduct discovery at this point. In fact, this Court on October 26, 2005 already denied Plaintiff's "Motion to Compel Disclosure of Witness Information." The Court ruled that the County did not have to release contact information about Plaintiff's witnesses because the discovery deadline had passed on February 28, 2005, and Plaintiff had not sought discovery in a timely fashion. Plaintiff is apparently attempting to do an end-run around the Court's order by contacting the individuals directly. Second, Mr. Romley is not a "witness" at this stage of the proceedings. The parties have fully-briefed summary judgment motions pending, which proceeding does not require discovery or subpoenas or witnesses. Therefore, there is no current grounds for Plaintiff to be seeking to serve subpoenas on anyone. Finally, in the event any claims were to survive summary judgment, and in the event subpoenas were to become necessary for any trial, then Plaintiff at that point should not be contacting any current or former Maricopa County employees directly. As this Court has already noted in its October 26th order, such individuals are represented by the County's counsel. Because Plaintiff has accused such individuals of liability-producing conduct, any requests for information or contact regarding such individuals should be directed to counsel. See e.g. Lang v. Superior Court, 170 Ariz. 602, 607, 826 P.2d 1228, 1233 (App. 1992) (opposing counsel cannot have ex parte contact with defendant's former employee where the acts or omissions of the former employee gave rise to the underlying litigation). While the ethical rules do not per se apply to Plaintiff, a non-lawyer, the reasons for preventing such ex parte contact, id., are equally applicable here. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request the Court to enter an order prohibiting Plaintiff from contacting current and former County employees directly, from attempting to conduct discovery, and from attempting to serve subpoenas at this time.

2 Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW Document 80 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 2 of 4

RESPECTFULLY SUBM ITTED this 1st day of November, 2005. J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C.

By /s/ Eileen Dennis GilBride Eileen Dennis GilBride 2901 North Central Ave., Ste. 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Co-Counsel for the County Defendants

ORIGINAL electronically filed this 1st day of November, 2005, with: Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court of Arizona 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 and copy delivered the same day to: Honorable Neil V. Wake United States District Court Judge 401 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85003 and copy mailed the same day to: Scott M. M cNair 5401 North Black Canyon Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85015 Plaintiff/appellant Pro Per and copies electronically delivered the same day to: Andrew Thomas M ARICOPA C OUNTY A TTORNEY Daniel R. Brenden, Bar #016395 Mary C. Cronin, Bar #010816 Division of County Counsel 222 North Central Avenue, Ste. 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206 Attorneys for the County Defendants

3 Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW Document 80 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 3 of 4

Craig Mousel Sunberg & Mousel 934 West McDowell Road Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Attorneys for Arizona State Personnel Board /s/ Eileen Dennis GilBride

4 Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW Document 80 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 4 of 4