Ring v. Chandler, City of et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Before the Court is the City of Chandler’s Motion to Quash or Modify Plaintiff’s
Rule 30(b)(6) Subpoena (Doc. 103), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 106), and the City of
Chandler’s Reply (Doc. 107). The Court rules as follows.1
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises from an incident wherein Richard Ring was fatally shot by Chander
Police Department Officer Kristoffer Buchanan. (Doc. 36). At the outset, the Court notes
that the City of Chandler is no longer a party to this case. (See Docs. 35, 36). The only
remaining claim in this case is Plaintiff Nancy Ring’s claim for excessive force against
Defendant Buchanan. (Doc. 36). This Motion, filed by the City of Chandler, seeks to quash
a subpoena issued by Plaintiff to the City for a 30(b)(6) deposition. (Doc. 96). Plaintiff
seeks to depose a representative from the City of Chandler regarding five topics:
1 Because it would not assist in resolution of the instant issues, the Court finds the
pending motion is suitable for decision without oral argument. See LRCiv. 7.2(f); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).
Nancy Ring,
Plaintiff,
vs.
City of Chandler, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-24-00630-PHX-SPL
ORDER
Case 2:24-cv-00630-SPL Document 108 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. CITY OF CHANDLER policies, procedures, training materials,
and General Orders in effect on March 29, 2023, regarding contact
with mentally impaired arrest subjects, and any changes in the
same thereafter.
2. CITY OF CHANDLER policies, procedures, training materials,
and General Orders in effect on March 29, 2023, regarding de-
escalation and crisis-intervention pertaining to mentally impaired
arrest subjects, and any changes in the same thereafter.
3. CITY OF CHANDLER policies, procedures, training materials,
and General Orders in effect on March 29, 2023, regarding use of
lethal force pertaining to mentally impaired arrest subjects, and
any changes in the same thereafter.
4. ARIZONA POST (Police Officer Standards and Training) policies
and procedures in effect on March 29, 2023, regarding de-
escalation and crisis-intervention pertaining to mentally impaired
arrest subjects, and any changes in the same thereafter.
5. ARIZONA POST policies and procedures in effect on March 29,
2023, regarding use of lethal force pertaining to mentally impaired
arrest subjects, and any changes in the same thereafter.
(Doc. 96 at 11).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“Rule 45 governs discovery of non-parties by subpoena.” Knox v. City of Pasadena,
2:23-cv-04447-MEMF(PDx), 2023 WL 9644853, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2023). “The
scope of discovery that can be obtained by a subpoena under Rule 45 is the same as that
under Rule 26(b).” Id. In addition, a Court must quash or modify a subpoena that “subjects
a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). The City of Chandler argues
that the information about the training policies and procedures is not relevant to the
excessive force claim and that a 30(b)(6) deposition would cause an undue burden,
especially because Plaintiff already has written discovery relating to the policies and
procedures. (Doc. 103 at 4–6).
III. DISCUSSION
First, the Court finds that the noticed topics relating to the City’s policies and
procedures are relevant to the excessive force claim. Plaintiff requests City of Chandler
“policies, procedures, training materials, and General Orders” regarding contact, de-
escalation and crisis intervention, and use of lethal force “pertaining to mentally impaired
Case 2:24-cv-00630-SPL Document 108 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
arrest subjects” that were in effect at the time of the incident. (Doc. 96 at 11). While these
policies and procedures may not be dispositive of whether Defendant Buchanan’s use of
force was greater than reasonable under the circumstances, see, e.g., Outley v. Moir, No.
CV 19-00019-PHX-JAT (JFM), 2022 WL 874282, at * 10 (D. Ariz. Mar. 24, 2022),
“internal policy guidelines” may still be “relevant to determining whether use of force is
objectively reasonable,” at least for purposes of discovery. Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912,
916 (9th Cir. 1994). Therefore, the Court finds those topics to be relevant under Rule 26.
A 30(b)(6) deposition is also proportional to the needs of the case, and a deposition
will not present an undue burden to the City of Chandler. The City argues that it has already
provided Plaintiff with Defendant Buchanan’s “complete training file, Chandler Police
Department’s General Order regarding Use of Force (which includes de-escalation), and
its Advanced Officer Training on defensive tactics. The City also produced the 17-page
Internal Affairs report which determined this shooting to be within department policy.”
(Doc. 103 at 5). The City also argues that Plaintiff may question Defendant Buchanan about
the training policies in his deposition. (Id. at 6). Although Plaintiff is already in possession
of relevant training documents, it is proportional to the needs of the case for Plaintiff to
depose a representative and ask questions about those documents. See Louisiana Pac.
Corp. v. Money Market 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 486 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
10, 2012) (“[I]n responding to a Rule 30(b)(6) notice or subpoena, a corporation may not
take the position that its documents state the company’s position.”); Estate of Marshall v.
Forest Grove, 2023 WL 6476618, at *7 (D. Or. Oct. 5, 2023) (Instructing a party to tailor
their deposition topics but stating, “the court is not signaling that plaintiffs cannot inquire
about the training records and materials and written policies or protocols that are
produced”). Therefore, the 30(b)(6) deposition, in and of itself, will not cause an undue
burden and is proportional to the needs of the case.
Finally, the City argues that the Court should, at least, modify the subpoena. (Doc.
103 at 6–7). Specifically, the City asserts that the requests for materials on “contact,” “de-
escalation and crisis intervention” are vague, overbroad, and duplicative. (Id. at 6). The
Case 2:24-cv-00630-SPL Document 108 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
City also argues that “Plaintiff has set forth no evidence of a diagnosed mental illness,” so
the topics related to mental impairment and mental illness are overboard and irrelevant.
(Id. at 6–7). “Although a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition may necessarily entail considerable
preparation, the court has a duty to protect a party from being needlessly burdened.”
Nichols v. Credit Union 1, No. 2:17-cv-02337-APG-GWF, 2018 WL 11404371, at *2 (D.
Nev. Dec. 26, 2018). To that end, courts have “repeatedly emphasized the practical
constraints on the scope of a [Rule] 30(b)(6) deposition” in that it is not feasible for “a Rule
30(b)(6) witness to know the intimate details of everything.” United States v. HVI Cat
Canyon, Inc., No. CV 11-5097 FMO, 2016 WL 11683593, at *7–8 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26,
2016). “The reasonableness of the length and scope of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice
turns on the circumstances of each case.” Reno v. W. Cab. Co., No. 2:18-cv-00840-APG-
NJK, 2020 WL 5902318, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 31, 2020).
Here, the Court does not believe that the deposition topics related to the Chandler
policies and procedures are unreasonably duplicative of other discovery or will cause
needless burden to the City of Chandler. And although the City argues that Plaintiff has
not shown evidence of decedent’s mental illness, the Complaint alleges “Ring suffered
from mental illness.” (Doc. 36 at 3, ¶ 8). Further, Plaintiff argues that the term mentally
impaired “encompasses individuals like Mr. Ring whose cognitive reasoning is impaired
by substances.” (Doc. 106 at 6). Therefore, the inquiries in topics 1–3 are relevant here.
However, the Court finds that topics four and five concerning the “Arizona POST”
policies and procedures would create an unfair and unfeasible burden for the City of
Chandler. The City explains that “AZ POST is an independent entity established by [state]
statute” that is “responsible for establishing minimum qualifications for officers to be
certified as peace officers in Arizona.” (Doc. 103 at 7). In response, Plaintiff asserts that
all City of Chandler police officers must be AZ POST-certified and that “Chandler PD’s
general orders are based on POST standards.” (Doc. 106 at 7). Even so, the Court finds that
the scope of the information sought related to AZ POST polices and procedures is
excessive for this 30(b)(6) deposition. See HVI Cat Canyon, 2016 WL 11683593, at *7–8.
Case 2:24-cv-00630-SPL Document 108 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Therefore, the Court will grant the request to modify the subpoena to the extent that the
City’s 30(b)(6) witness may only be examined on the topics 1–3, relating to the City’s
policies and procedures.
Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the City of Chandler’s Motion to Quash or
Modify Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) Subpoena (Doc. 103) is granted in part and denied in
part in accordance with this Order. The Court grants the City of Chandler’s request to
modify the subpoena to exclude the topics relating to Arizona POST policies and
procedures. The Motion is denied in all other respects.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2026.
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-00630-SPL Document 108 Filed 03/23/26 Page 5 of 5