The state told the defense it intends to use a two-drug cocktail of Midazolam and Hydromorphone but refused to provide the name of the manufacturer and other requested information. It advised that:

[I]t had chosen the amounts of both drugs based on declarations and sworn testimony in “the Ohio Execution Protocol litigation.” It also indicated that the drugs would be domestically obtained and FDA-approved, although it would not release other identifying information, citing Arizona’s confidentiality law....

The defense then renewed its request for:

(1) the source(s), manufacturer(s), National Drug Codes (“NDCs”), and lot numbers of the drugs the Department intends to use in his execution; (2) non-personally identifying information detailing the qualifications of the personnel the Department will use in his execution; and (3) information and documents explaining how the Department developed its current lethal-injection drug protocol.

The state refused and Mr. Wood filed suit. He argued that by deliberately concealing the information about the lethal injection drugs and procedures, the state violated his:

(1) First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances and (2) First Amendment right to be informed about the manner in which Arizona implements the death penalty;

He also argued that Arizona’s protocol was developed without compliance with the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, in violation of the Supremacy clause.

The trial court rejected his arguments and he appealed. The 9th Circuit granted the stay. The Court noted the two botched executions in Oklahoma and one in Ohio using these same two drugs.

Given the law in California First Amendment Coalition, and the factual backdrop of the past six months in particular, more information about the drugs used in