Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-283/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR

DISCOVERY

This matter came before the Court on February 19, 2013, on Plaintiffs’ February 14,

2013 motion for discovery. Because time was of the essence, the Court issued an order

ruling on the motion, as well as on an argument construed as an oral motion, later that same

day. This order explains the Court’s reasoning and also sets a schedule for expert disclosures

if Defendants opt to file a termination motion.

BACKGROUND

On September 5, 2012, this Court set a framework for transitioning away from the

Receivership and also ordered the court experts to begin evaluating the quality of care at

individual institutions. On February 12, 2013, Defendants represented that they “will file a

termination motion in a few months” if they conclude that the ongoing expert evaluations

have not been completed “in a reasonable period” or the experts “lose sight of the governing

constitutional standards.” Defs.’ Feb. 12, 2013 Response & Obj. to Jan. 29, 2013

Plata/Coleman Order at 1 (Docket No. 2529).

Plaintiffs “recently learned” that Defendants “hired physicians from Texas to evaluate

the medical care at California’s prisons,” and that these physicians were scheduled to visit

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2546 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The timing of the automatic stay depends on whether the motion is made under 18

U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1) or (2), in which case the stay begins 30 days after the motion is filed, or

under “any other law,” in which case the stay begins 180 days after the motion is filed. Id.

§ 3626(e)(2). “The court may postpone the effective date of [either] automatic stay . . . for

not more than 60 days for good cause.” Id. § 3626(e)(3).

2

two prisons between February 20 and 22, 2013. Specter Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Plaintiffs’ counsel

contacted Defendants’ counsel on February 11 and again on February 13 to request

permission to accompany the Texas physicians on their prison tours. Id. ¶ 5. Defendants did

not respond to these requests, id. ¶¶ 5-6, and Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for

discovery to be heard on shortened time. Plaintiffs requested that discovery be re-opened

and that Plaintiffs’ counsel be allowed to accompany Defendants’ hired consultants on their

prison tours.

On February 14, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to hear the motion on

shortened time. Defendants filed a timely opposition the following day.

At oral argument, the parties also discussed Defendants’ request for their consultants

to meet with members of the Receiver’s executive staff in the afternoon following the motion

hearing. The Court construed that discussion as an oral motion by Plaintiffs to be allowed to

participate in any such meetings.

DISCUSSION

The Court addresses each of Plaintiffs’ requests in turn below.

I. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Re-Open Discovery

First, Plaintiffs request that discovery be re-opened to allow them “an opportunity to

investigate the current conditions in the California state prisons” in anticipation of the

potential termination motion under consideration by Defendants. Mot. at 2. Plaintiffs’

request stems primarily from the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (“PLRA’s”) automatic stay

provisions, which provide that a motion to terminate injunctive relief operates as an

automatic stay beginning 30 or 180 days after such a motion is filed.1

 18 U.S.C.

§ 3626(e)(2).

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2546 Filed 02/21/13 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Counsel argued only that accompanying Defendants’ consultants on prison visits

should not be the basis for Plaintiffs’ preparation.

3

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ concerns about the time limitations imposed by the PLRA

to be reasonable, particularly since it is not clear under which provision Defendants might

file a motion to terminate. The Court finds it would be fundamentally unfair to allow

Defendants an unlimited time to prepare for filing a motion while permitting Plaintiffs only

the time allowed by the PLRA’s automatic stay – less the time required for a hearing and for

the Court to make a ruling – to prepare an opposition that will likely involve substantial

evidence. As the parties are well aware, this is a complex case, and the Court anticipates

that, absent a stipulation, determining whether this case should be terminated will require a

detailed factual inquiry. In addition, Defendants’ counsel acknowledged at oral argument

that they were not arguing that Plaintiffs have no right to begin preparing for a potential

motion to terminate.2

 Indeed, just as Defendants are entitled to hire consultants to review

prison conditions, so are Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to re-open discovery is

GRANTED to allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to prepare for a potential termination motion at

the same time as Defendants.

The Court expects the parties to act reasonably while they conduct discovery and

anticipates that the parties, acting in good faith, will be able to resolve most, if not all,

discovery disputes without further intervention. If the parties have a dispute that they cannot

resolve among themselves, they shall telephone the Court’s courtroom deputy and request a

referral to a magistrate judge for discovery purposes.

II. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Accompany Defendants’ Consultants on Prison Visits

Plaintiffs next request an order allowing Plaintiffs’ counsel to attend all prison tours

by Defendants’ consultants or experts. Defendants object to this request on grounds that

granting it would intrude on privileged communications between Defendants’ counsel and

their consultants. For support, Defendants rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(b)(4)(C), which protects communications between a party’s attorney and designated

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2546 Filed 02/21/13 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court grants Defendants’ unopposed request for judicial notice.

4

expert witnesses except for three delineated areas, as well as a brief order from Magistrate

Judge Edmund Brennan relying on Rule 26(b)(4)(C) to deny a request similar to the one

Plaintiffs have made in this case. Mitchell v. Cate, Case No. 2:08-CV-01196 JAM EFB

(E.D. Cal.), Oct. 17, 2012 Order re: Discovery Dispute (Ex. A to Defs.’ Req. for Judicial

Notice).3

At oral argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel made clear that they do not intend to interfere

with any communications between Defendants’ counsel and their consultants or experts, or

with any communications the consultants or experts may have among themselves. Instead,

Plaintiffs’ counsel intend merely to observe, as well as to be present in case any consultant or

expert wishes to speak to a member of the Plaintiff class whom counsel represents.

The Court rejects the Mitchell court’s conclusory decision that accompanying experts

on a prison tour “would constitute an impermissible invasion into privileged communications

between Defendants, their counsel, and their expert consultants as they work together to

evaluate Plaintiffs’ claims and prepare a defense, and would also violate the work-product

privilege,” id. at 2, and Defendants have cited no other authority to support their position. To

the contrary, Defendants’ own position regarding their right to accompany Plaintiffs’ counsel

on any prison visits demonstrates that Defendants do not themselves believe that observation

of a consultant’s prison tours by opposing counsel violates any privilege. Defendants’

counsel insist that they must be present for all prison tours by Plaintiffs’ consultants or

experts – which would be barred by Rule 26 if the Court were to accept Defendants’ position

in opposition to the instant motion. Likewise, Defendants’ counsel stated at oral argument

that they must attend Plaintiffs’ monitoring visits because they represent prison staff who

have a right to have their attorney present when opposing counsel visit. The same rationale

applies to Plaintiffs’ counsel, who represent prison inmates with whom Defendants’

consultants may wish to speak.

Consequently, the Court finds good cause to GRANT Plaintiffs’ motion to accompany

Defendants’ consultants or experts on their prison visits. All counsel will be permitted to

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2546 Filed 02/21/13 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

The Court expects the parties to cooperate on what constitutes “reasonable notice.” 

Any disputes over whether notice was reasonable will be resolved by a magistrate judge. If

the judge determines that notice provided for any particular prison visit was not reasonable,

then testimony based on that visit will not be permitted.

5

accompany all consultants and experts on prison tours, but opposing counsel shall not be

permitted to participate or listen in on any communications between retained consultants and

experts and their counsel, or between consultants and experts retained by the same party. 

Reasonable notice of any prison visits by consultants or experts must be provided to

opposing counsel.4

In addition, to ensure that both parties have sufficient time for discovery if Defendants

file a motion to terminate, and given the restrictions of the PLRA’s automatic stay

provisions, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall disclose the identity of any expert witnesses and provide expert

reports in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) at least 120

days prior to filing any motion to terminate.

2. Plaintiffs shall disclose the identity of any expert witnesses and provide expert

reports in compliance with Rules 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) no later than 14 days after Defendants’

expert disclosures.

3. Expert discovery shall be completed within 120 days after Defendants’ expert

disclosures.

III. Plaintiffs’ Oral Motion to Accompany Defendants’ Consultants in Meetings with

Receiver’s Executive Staff

Finally, the Court construed Plaintiffs’ argument regarding meetings between

Defendants’ consultants and the Receiver’s executive staff as an oral motion that Plaintiffs’

counsel be permitted to attend such meetings. These meetings do not have the client

concerns present during prison visits, and Defendants’ counsel do not assert any right to

participate in meetings between the Receiver’s staff and Plaintiffs’ counsel, consultants, or

experts. Plaintiffs have not persuaded the Court that good cause exists to grant their oral

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2546 Filed 02/21/13 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

motion, and the motion is therefore DENIED. Both parties’ consultants, experts, and counsel

may communicate with the Receiver’s executive staff without the presence of opposing

counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 02/21/13 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2546 Filed 02/21/13 Page 6 of 6