Thrasher #279825 v. Vannorstran 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
Alex Guy Gillis Thrasher,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown VanNorstran, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV 24-050-TUC-CKJ
ORDER
Pending before the Court are the Motion to Compel Production of a List of
NaphCare's Employee List and Job Titles (Doc. 69) and Motion to Compel Production of a
Redacted NaphCare Employee List of Administration and to Compel Defendant to Answer
Interrogatory Question 16-87 and to Fully Answer 7-16 as in Most Part are Needed to be
Able to Properly and Fully Argue My Case (Doc. 74) filed by Plaintiff Alex Guy Gillis
Thrasher ("Thrasher"). Also pending before the Court is the Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
Notice (Dkt. 63) (Doc. 70) filed by Defendant Jennifer VanNorstran ("VanNorstran" or "the
defense").
I. Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Notice (Doc. 63)
VanNorstran requests the Court strike the document entitled Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories to Defendant(s) (Doc. 63). The Clerk of Court docketed this document as a
Notice titled Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants.
VanNorstran asserts this document should be stricken because it is not authorized by
Case 4:24-cv-00050-CKJ Document 78 Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 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
1VanNorstran states she has "served objections/responses to the interrogatories on
Plaintiff via mail." Reply (Doc. 75, p. 1).
2Thrasher has not provided the "certification that [he] has in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort
to obtain it without court action" required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). However, Thrasher does
assert the defense has acted in bad faith and has not provided helpful information. Motion (Doc.
60, p. 1).
- 2 -
any rule or statute. See LRCiv 7.2(m).1 Indeed, the appropriate procedure is to file a Notice
of Service of discovery papers. LRCiv 5.2; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(1) ("[A] party may serve
on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave
to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and
(2)."). Thrasher does not dispute the submission violates the applicable rule, but requests the
Court "to order the Defendant to answer the questions in the name of justice." Response (Doc.
71, p. 3).
The Court agrees the filing is not in compliance with the applicable rule. However,
Thrasher did not include a copy of the interrogatories in support of his Motions to Compel.
Because seeing and analyzing discovery material may be appropriate in determining whether
the Motions to Compel should be granted, i.e., for practical reasons, the Court will deny the
Motion to Strike. See LRCiv 83.6 ("any Judge of this Court may suspend any of these Local
Rules for good cause shown"); see also Nilon v. Nat.-Immunogenics Corp., No.
3:12-CV-00930-LAB BG, 2014 WL 3779006, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2014).
II. Motions to Compel (Docs. 69 and 74)2
Thrasher seeks a limited employee list, with titles, of administrators and decision-
makers related to the process, procurement, and providing vaccines. VanNorstran asserts,
however:
As Defendant has explained through undersigned counsel, there are no individuals
who hold titles or the positions/duties as described by Plaintiff in the Second
Amended Complaint - supervisor (ultrasound and D.V.T.) and supervisor (vaccine
Case 4:24-cv-00050-CKJ Document 78 Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -
acquisition) (Dk. 65). As such, there would be no list that NaphCare would or could
provide to Plaintiff that would provide him the information he appears to still be
seeking, which is the identity of employee responsible for such duties. Plaintiff does
not and could not demonstrate that he would be able to review a list of employees, by
title, and determine which individuals are responsible for duties he has already been
informed do not exist.
Response (Doc. 73, p. 2).
The requirement of producing documents is subject to being "in the responding party's
possession, custody, or control." Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1). VanNorstran has made clear neither
she nor her attorney are aware of any document/information to produce in response to
Thrasher's request. Further, by counsel's signature, she is stating that, "to the best of [her]
knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances[,]" those statements are true. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (b); see also Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 42,
E.R. 3.3(a)(1) ("A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . make a false statement of fact or law to
a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the
tribunal by the lawyer[.]"), 3.3(b) ("A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative
proceeding and who knows that a person . . . . is engaging or has engaged in . . . fraudulent
conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if
necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.").
While in some circumstances it may be appropriate to compel disclosure to determine
whether information outside the knowledge of VanNorstran and counsel exists, public
information does not warrant such action in this case. The Court has no reason to not believe
relevant Arizona guidelines do not apply. See Arizona Department of Corrections
Rehabilitation and Reentry Clinical Practice Guidelines, https://corrections.az.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/Medical%20Services/TM%201101%20-%20Clinical%20Practice
%20Guidelines%20-%20Eff.%2010-1-24.pdf (last access 10/15/2025), p. 95
("Recommended vaccines may include but are not limited to. . . COVID-19 vaccine -
Recommended for all adults"). Additionally, as Naphcare is a national business,
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, with an intranet portal that indicates it has policies
Case 4:24-cv-00050-CKJ Document 78 Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -
and procedures regarding prisons, https://access.naphcare.com/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
(last accessed 10/15/2025), it appears national policies exist. There is no basis to conclude
either VanNorstran or counsel would have any ability to provide an employee list that could
provide Thrasher with the requested information. The Court will deny the motions as to this
request.
Thrasher also requests VanNorstran be directed to fully respond to his interrogatories.
VanNorstran states, "Defendant is nevertheless serving objections/responses to those
interrogatories (which far exceed the number of allowed interrogatories) today." Response
(Doc. 73, p. 2, n. 1). However, although Thrasher has submitted a copy of the interrogatories
in a separate filing, see Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants (Doc. 63), he has
not provided the Court with the responses to Interrogatories 7-16 or a statement/argument
how they are lacking. As stated by another district court:
. . . Defendant does not provide the Court with the numbers and text of the
interrogatories at issue, nor does it provide the Court with a copy of the text of
Plaintiff's responses. Without the opportunity to see and analyze the discovery
material at issue, the Court cannot rule on Defendant's request that Plaintiff amend or
supplement his interrogatory responses; therefore, Defendant's motion to compel
further interrogatory responses is DENIED on that ground as well. See Funetes v.
Knowles, 2007 WL 1946619, *2 (“It is not the court's duty to go through each
[discovery] request ... in order to determine whether a response is inadequate. It is [the
moving party's] duty to inform the court and [opposing counsel] of his specific
objections to each of the at-issue requests. The court cannot make ... argument for [the
movant].”)
Nilon, 2014 WL 3779006 at *6. Additionally, as to interrogatories 16-87, it appears Thrasher
had not received VanNorstran's responses prior to the filing of the Motion. However, as the
defense has indicated responses/objections were being provided, this issue is now moot. In
other words, even if the Court ordered VanNorstran to respond to the interrogatories 16-87,
it would have no effect because VanNorstran has already responded to the interrogatories.
See e.g., W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass'n v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 643 F.3d 701,
704 (9th Cir. 2011), quoting United States v. Ford, 650 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir.1981)
("Since there is no longer any action in which appellants can intervene, judicial consideration
of the [intervention] question would be fruitless."). The Court will deny this request.
Case 4:24-cv-00050-CKJ Document 78 Filed 10/20/25 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. 	The Motion to Compel Production of a List of NaphCare's Employee List and
Job Titles (Doc. 69) and the Motion to Compel Production of a Redacted NaphCare
Employee List of Administration and to Compel Defendant to Answer Interrogatory Question
16-87 and to Fully Answer 7-16 as in Most Part are Needed to be Able to Properly and Fully
Argue My Case (Doc. 74) are DENIED.
2. 	The Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Notice (Doc. 70) is DENIED.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2025.
Case 4:24-cv-00050-CKJ Document 78 Filed 10/20/25 Page 5 of 5