Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-03274/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-03274-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS N. ERVINE

Plaintiff, No. C 00-3274 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

JESSICA CLARKE, et al., MOTION TO COMPEL 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with a duly issued subpoena requesting site

inspection came on for hearing before this court on January 4, 2006. Plaintiff Dennis Ervine

appeared through his counsel, Kevin A. Hughey and Keith M. Casto. Respondent San

Quentin appeared through its counsel, John G. Donhoff. Having read the parties’ papers and

carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause

appearing, the court hereby DENIES the motion in part and GRANTS the motion in part as

follows, for the reasons stated at the hearing.

Preliminarily, the court notes that, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, respondent has not

waived its objections to the subpoena. Respondent’s letter to plaintiff dated July 18, 2005,

was sufficient to place plaintiff on notice of respondent’s written objections within the 14-day

time frame contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(B), despite the fact that

respondent’s written objections were not formally made until well afterwards.

Having dispensed with that procedural issue, the court rules as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to compel inspection of the exercise yard is DENIED. Plaintiff

failed to formally request inspection of the exercise yard in its subpoena to

respondent, thereby precluding any motion to compel on the issue.

Case 4:00-cv-03274-PJH Document 128 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2. Plaintiff’s request to compel inspection of any and all medical facilities available

to the East Block inmates is DENIED. Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently

demonstrate to the court how inspection of these facilities is likely to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. In view of plaintiff’s weak showing, the court

is not persuaded that the probative value of the inspection outweighs

respondent’s legitimate concerns over safety, security, scheduling, and

expense. 

3. Plaintiff’s request to compel inspection of the East Block condemned unit,

including any and all cells and tiers in which plaintiff was housed between in

1999 and 2000 is GRANTED. Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that

inspection of the relevant tiers and cells may provide support for plaintiff’s

claims regarding the visibility of plaintiff’s sick call request slips, and other

claims related to whether plaintiff was “obviously ill,” such that a case for

deliberate indifference may be made. As such, the probative value of the

inspection outweighs – albeit by a narrow margin – respondent’s safety and

security concerns. 

Any inspection undertaken by plaintiff pursuant to the above shall be made by no more

than one expert, and plaintiff shall not photograph or videotape respondent’s premises as part

of plaintiff’s inspection. Respondent is entitled to have counsel present during the inspection,

in order to preserve any relevant objections. 

The parties have also requested, and the court has GRANTED, a two-week extension

of time in which to submit expert reports. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2006 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:00-cv-03274-PJH Document 128 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 2