Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-318/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Case No. 01-cv-01351 TEH (NC)

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER BRIEF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MARCIANO PLATA, and others,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., and others,

 Defendants.

Case No. 01-cv-01351 TEH (NC)

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER BRIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 2711

The parties are familiar with the long procedural history in this case involving 

medical care in California prisons, so the Court will only recap recent events. On February

14, 2013, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking to re-open discovery. The stated 

purpose of the request was that defendants intended to move for termination of the court 

orders in this case imminently, and plaintiffs therefore needed “an opportunity to investigate 

the current conditions in the California state prisons.” Dkt. 2534 at 2. The district court 

granted plaintiffs’ motion, allowing plaintiffs “an opportunity to prepare for a potential 

termination motion at the same time as Defendants.” Dkt. 2542 at 1; Dkt. 2546 at 3.

Defendants then served on Plaintiffs interrogatories and requests for production of 

documents. The parties filed a joint letter brief on September 13, 2013, outlining a dispute 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2723 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 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

Case No. 01-cv-01351 TEH (NC)

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER BRIEF

2

regarding Plaintiffs’ responses and objections to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests 

for production. In the letter, Defendants ask the Court: 1) to compel Plaintiffs to 

supplement their interrogatories to name all witnesses that Plaintiffs intend to rely upon in 

opposing a future motion to terminate; and 2) to find that Plaintiffs waived their privilege 

objection based on Plaintiffs’ initial responses to interrogatories and requests for 

production, and therefore to compel production of all withheld materials. Defendants’ 

requests are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 sets forth limits on the scope and frequency of 

discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), (2). Rule 26(b)(2)(C) instructs that “the court must 

limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule 

if it determines that ... the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, 

the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in 

resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

Here, the Court finds that it is premature to compel Plaintiffs to name all potential 

witnesses they may rely upon in opposing a future motion to terminate. Considering the 

Defendants’ access to information regarding inmates and CDCR staff, the currently

hypothetical nature of a motion to terminate, and the volume of letters that the Prison Law 

Office receives from inmates, the Court finds that the burden on Plaintiffs to identify 

prisoners and CDCR staff outweighs the potential benefit to Defendants. At the hearing 

held on September 25, 2013, Plaintiffs’ counsel explained the process by which Defendants 

receive notification of any inmate writing to Prison Law Office complaining of an 

unaddressed medical problem. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to supplement their interrogatories 

within 14 days by providing a written description of this process. The Court notes that it 

may become appropriate to disclose the identity and contentions of potential witnesses at a 

later date, when claims surrounding a motion to terminate have crystalized. 

The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have not waived objections of privilege. Given 

the burden involved with logging each and every letter that Prison Law Office receives 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2723 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 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

Case No. 01-cv-01351 TEH (NC)

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER BRIEF

3

from its clients, the Court finds a categorical privilege log was appropriate. See PostX 

Corp. v. Secure Data Motion, No. 02-cv-04483 SI, 2004 WL 2623234, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

June 9, 2004) (citing SEC v. Thrasher, No. 92 CIV. 6987 (JFK)), 1996 WL 125661, at *1 

(S.D.N.Y. March 20, 1996) (finding categorical privilege log appropriate where identifying 

each withheld document “would be unduly burdensome and ... the additional information 

to be gleaned from a more detailed log would be of no material benefit to the discovering 

party in the assessing whether the privilege claim is well grounded.”). Therefore, 

Defendants’ request that all withheld letter be produced due to waiver of privilege is 

DENIED. 

Any party may object to this order within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: September 30, 2013

_________________________

Nathanael M. Cousins

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2723 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 3