Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02375/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02375-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 05cv2375 JLS (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRETCHAN R. YOUNG, individually and as

Successor in Interest to the ESTATE OF

JOHNNY FITZGERALD YOUNG,

Civil No. 05cv2375 JLS (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY

CONFERENCE REGARDING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

On October 1, 2007, this Court held a telephonic conference on Defendants’ motion to compel

production of documents. Thomas Luneau, Esq., appeared for Plaintiff. Susan Coleman, Esq., and

Marguerite Lieu, Esq., appeared for Defendants. Having considered the submissions of the parties and

the arguments of counsel, Defendants’ motion is Granted.

Defendants propounded discovery on Plaintiff on May 4, 2007, including requests for the

production of any documents received by Plaintiff from any inmate, parolee, or former inmate in

response to a questionnaire sent by Plaintiff’s counsel about the incident at issue in the lawsuit. Plaintiff

served untimely responses and objected to the request based on work production protection. 

In February 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a questionnaire to certain inmates believed to have

witnessed the yard incident that allegedly led to the death of Johnny Young. The questionnaire asked the

witness inmates to provide their personal observations and recollections of the event. Defendants’

counsel became aware of the questionnaire and propounded the discovery request for any responses. 

Case 3:05-cv-02375-JLS-CAB Document 62 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 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

2 05cv2375 JLS (CAB)

Questionnaires completed by third persons are not work product. See U.S. v. Real Estate Bd. of

Met. St. Louis, 59 F.R.D. 637, 640 (E.D. Mo. 1973); Powell v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 584 F.Supp. 1508,

1520 (N.D. Cal.1984) (assuming work-product privilege applied to document, only verbatim witness

statements had to be released). The documents at issue are the verbatim statements of witnesses. They

are the factual observations of percipient witnesses, not the thoughts or impressions of counsel. This

distinguishes the present discovery from the discovery sought in O’Conner v. Boeing North American

Inc., 216 F.R.D. 640 (C.D. Cal. 2003), in which defense counsel sought the witness interview notes of

plaintiff’s counsel’s investigator. 

Plaintiff is ordered to produce the questionnaires to the Court for an in camera review no later

than October 5, 2007. In order to address Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the safety and privacy of the

inmate witnesses, the Court will review the documents to consider the need, if any, for redactions prior

to the production to Defendants’ counsel. After the Court’s review, production of any unredacted

portions of the statements will be made under the protective order as “confidential, attorneys’ eyes only.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 1, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02375-JLS-CAB Document 62 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2