Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-309/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 DENYING REQUESTS

FOR ADMISSIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MARCIANO PLATA, and others,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, and others,

 Defendants.

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

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 2676

The long history of this case about medical care in California prisons is wellknown to the parties, so a short summary of the discovery dispute presented will suffice. 

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. 

Plaintiffs then served two requests for admissions. The requests ask Governor

Brown to admit that two newspaper articles “accurately reflect” statements he made. 

Plaintiffs later specified that the statements at issue are as follows:

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2685 Filed 07/25/13 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 DENYING REQUESTS

FOR ADMISSIONS 2

1. “During the life of these lawsuits, the prison health care budget has gone from

$700 million to $2 billion. . . . That money is coming out of the university, it’s coming out

of child care. It’s a situation you wouldn’t dream anyone would want.”

2. Gov. Jerry Brown said Friday his administration will not comply with a federal

court order rejecting his effort to avoid reducing California’s prison population, pledging

to litigate “until the Supreme Court tells us that we’re not on the right track.”

Defendants object to the requests on several grounds: (1) the requests are not

relevant to the constitutionality of the prison health care system and are not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (2) the requests are

harassing and burdensome. On the burden objection, defendants assert that the Governor

speaks to the press almost daily, and requiring him to admit what he said would be unfair. 

Furthermore, newspaper articles about the Governor’s statements are self-authenticating

under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(6), so it should not be necessary for the Governor to

formally admit the statements.

This dispute is resolved through a straightforward application of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Rule 36 permits a party to request another party to admit the truth of

facts of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1). Rule 26(b)(1), in turn, permits

discovery of nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a claim or defense. Relevant

information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Here, the requested admissions are not relevant because they are outside the scope

of the discovery that the plaintiffs requested and the court permitted. Specifically,

plaintiffs requested “an opportunity to investigate the current conditions in the California

state prisons.” The Governor’s statements to the press about the prisons are not probative

of the actual conditions of the prisons. The court might take judicial notice that the

Governor has made many statements to the press about California’s prisons. As the

saying goes, talk is cheap. The imminent termination motion will not be decided based

on press conferences, but rather by evidence from the prisons.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2685 Filed 07/25/13 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 DENYING REQUESTS

FOR ADMISSIONS 3

In sum, because the requested admissions seek information that is not relevant, the

defendants were justified in objecting. The plaintiffs’ motion to compel answers to the

requests is therefore denied.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may object to this

nondispositive ruling, but must do so within fourteen days of being served with the order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: July 25, 2013 ________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2685 Filed 07/25/13 Page 3 of 3