Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03995/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03995-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

1 Plaintiff had initially sought personnel files

relating to Officer Chavez and two other officers. Following

a telephonic discovery conference, however, plaintiff narrowed

his request to documents relating to Officer Chavez’s

termination. See Pl.’s Reply at 1-2.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANDREA TODD,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

A.A. LAMARQUE, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C03-3995 SBA (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Before me is plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with

a subpoena served on the State of California on June 19, 2007. 

In particular, plaintiff seeks to compel the State, the

California Department of Corrections, two named prisons, and

any related unit or division thereof (“respondents”), to

produce all records referring or relating to the termination

of Officer Fernando Chavez. The parties are to be

complimented for resolving their other disputes.1 For the

following reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. 

I agree with plaintiff that the documents now requested

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 114 Filed 07/12/07 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

2 It is not clear whether Officer Chavez, who has

apparently been terminated, would have any control over these

records.

3 Specifically, I concur with Judge Wanger’s analysis

in Jones v. Tozzi, 2007 WL 1299795 (E.D. Cal. 2007).

2

are reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Respondents’ arguments concerning

state law privileges are unavailing. See Voth v. Albright,

2006 WL 3001362, at *7 (noting that federal privilege law

controls in federal civil right litigation); Soto v. City of

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 609 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (rejecting

claims founded on state privileges, including the California

Penal and Evidence Codes, as inconsistent with federal

principles). To the extent some of the information disclosed

may be confidential in nature, the manner in which disclosure

will be ordered deals adequately with respondents’ concerns. 

See, e.g., Tillis v. Lamarque, 2006 WL 1050153, at *3 (N.D.

Cal. 2006) (ordering depositions to proceed designated as

confidential for attorneys’ and experts’ eyes only). And

although pursuing these documents directly from Officer Chavez

may have been the better practice,2 I reject respondents’

argument premised on the Eleventh Amendment.3

For these reasons, and for good cause appearing,

plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoena is

GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The model stipulated protective order, which can be

found on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/

under the “Forms” link, is adopted and will govern discovery

in this case going forward unless the parties agree to a

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 114 Filed 07/12/07 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

3

different one; 

 2. The parties will electronically file a signed copy of

the stipulated protective order by Wednesday, July 18, 2007; 

 3. Respondents will produce to plaintiff’s counsel,

pursuant to the protective order and under the designation

“Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only”, all records

referring or relating to the termination of Officer Fernando

Chavez, by Monday, July 23, 2007; 

4. Respondents will redact private personal information

from any responsive documents, including social security

numbers, home addresses, and names of family members; 

5. Upon receipt of the documents, plaintiff’s counsel

will make a good faith determination of relevancy and, by

Monday, August 6, 2007, will return to respondents those

documents deemed irrelevant.

Dated: July 11, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\TODD\ORDER GRANT DISC.wpd

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 114 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 3