Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_87-cv-01623/USCOURTS-caed-2_87-cv-01623-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

 The subheadings in this order refer to sections in the parties’ “Joint Statement Re:

Discovery Disputes.” 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES F. PIFER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-87-1623 FCD KJM P

vs.

DANIEL MCCARTHY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s December 29, 2004 motion to compel is before

the court. On February 25, 2005, the parties filed a “Joint Statement Re: Discovery Disputes”

(Joint Statement) outlining their positions concerning plaintiff’s motion. On March 2, 2005, the

motion came on for hearing; Carter White, Nicholas Carrigan and Jason Schnitzler appeared for

plaintiff; Sandra Lusich appeared for defendants. After reviewing all matters relevant to

plaintiff’s motion, the court finds as follows: 

1. Section III.A.1 (Redacted Nonconfidential Central File Documents)1

Counsel for defendants shall make a reasonable, good faith effort to locate

Case 2:87-cv-01623-FCD-KJM Document 431 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

unredacted copies of the documents identified on page 6, lines 8-18 of the Joint Statement, and

provide them to plaintiff’s counsel within thirty days. If after a reasonable effort, unredacted

copies cannot be located, counsel shall so certify to plaintiff within the same thirty day period

provided herein. 

2. Section III.A.2 (Confidential Folder in Central File)

At the hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel, the court ordered defendants to

produce, for in camera review, the documents referenced on page 7, lines 16-20 of the Joint

Statement. Defendants submitted the documents to the court on March 4, 2005. 

The court will not order defendants to produce the August 13, 2001 memorandum

submitted, as it does not appear relevant to any claim in this case, nor does production appear

likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants will be ordered to produce the

January 14, 2002 memorandum. Defendants may redact the following material from the January

2002 memorandum: page 2, second full paragraph (beginning with the words “First Item”)

through and including the end of the second full paragraph on page 4 (ending with the word

“gang.”). Counsel for plaintiff shall not show this document to anyone, including plaintiff,

without a prior court order. 

2. Section III.A.3 (Validation Documents)

Plaintiff seeks “[i]tems used to validate [plaintiff] as an associate of the Aryan

Brotherhood.” Defendants have indicated that, with respect to this request, they “have nothing

more to produce.” Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel will be denied as moot with respect to

the material outlined in section III.A.3 of the Joint Statement. 

3. Section III.B (Deposition by Written Questions)

Defendants served a “Notice Of Deposition By Written Questions With Request

For Production Of Custodian Of Records FRCP 26, 31, 34, and 45" by subpoena upon

“Custodian of Records, California Department of Corrections, c/o Edward Alameida, Director,

1515 S Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814.” Joint Statement, Ex. G at 1, 5. The deposition was

Case 2:87-cv-01623-FCD-KJM Document 431 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 5
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

2

 Counsel for the “Custodian” is also counsel for the defendants in the action. In the

Joint Statement, the “Custodian” is identified as Marilyn Ouye. Joint Statement at 10:23-26. 

3

 It may well be that plaintiff’s counsel felt there was no reason to go forward with the

deposition of the Custodian identified in the notice. At the hearing on the motion to compel,

counsel for plaintiff suggested that the only reason for having the deposition was for the

Custodian to authenticate records produced in response to the subpoena. From her objections to

the request to produce, however, it appears the Custodian was not going to produce any

documents at or before the deposition. 

3

scheduled for May 30, 2003 in Sacramento. Id. at 1. According to the “Notice,” the Custodian

was to appear to answer certain written questions provided in the “Notice,” and to bring certain

documents to the deposition. After receiving, the “Notice” and before the deposition was to

occur, counsel for the Custodian2 served plaintiff with written objections to the request for

documents. Id., Ex. H. At the hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel, the parties informed the

court that no objections were ever made to the written questions and that the deposition never

occurred. It appears that plaintiff asks that the Custodian, or whoever is the person most

knowledgeable with regard to the discovery requested, be required to sit for deposition. 

Because it does not appear from the record that the Custodian refused to be

deposed, or did not show up for any deposition at a time confirmed by plaintiff’s counsel, the

court cannot compel the Custodian or anyone else to do anything with respect to the deposition

by written questions. It appears from the record the Custodian was prepared to honor the

subpoena with respect to the deposition, but plaintiff simply decided not to go forward with it.3

4. Section III. C (Request for Production of Documents at Deposition)

As noted above, counsel for the Custodian served objections to the request for

documents portion of the “Notice Of Deposition By Written Questions With Request For

Production. . .” as the Custodian is authorized to do under Rule 45(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Id. Plaintiff requested that the Custodian produce fourteen different

categories of documents. Id., Ex. G at 2-3.

At the hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel, counsel for the Custodian and

Case 2:87-cv-01623-FCD-KJM Document 431 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

defendants indicated that plaintiff has been provided with all documents responsive to requests 4,

5, 8, 10 and 11. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel will be denied as moot with respect to

these requests.

With respect to requests 1-3, 6-7, 9 and 12-14, the Custodian asserts that such

documents are not in her possession, and that she is not the custodian of such records. Plaintiff

asserts that if such documents are not in the possession of the Custodian, the California

Department of Corrections (CDC) must designate the person who does possess such documents

under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that person should be required

to turn over the documents to plaintiff. This argument is not well taken. Rule 30(b)(6)

specifically provides that a party may name a governmental entity as the deponent in a subpoena

and identify particular matters upon which an examination is requested. Such a subpoena must

inform the entity of its duty to designate one or more persons to testify in response to the

subpoena. Not only did the subpoena at issue identify a particular person – not a governmental

entity – as the party to be deposed; no mention was made of CDC’s duty to designate one or

more persons to testify. In fact, Rule 30(b)(6) is not mentioned in the subpoena at all or in the

accompanying documents. On this record, the court cannot require anyone other than the

Custodian to respond to plaintiff’s subpoena. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel will be

denied with respect to requests 1-3, 6-7, 9 and 12-14 found on pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit G

attached to the Joint Statement. 

5. Section III. D (Discovery Previously Propounded by Plaintiff In Pro Per)

The court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel with respect to the matters

addressed in Section III.D of the parties’ Joint Statement at the hearing held March 2, 2005, and

in the order issued immediately following that hearing. See Order filed March 3, 2005. 

6. Scheduling Matters

The parties have asked for sixty days from the resolution of plaintiff’s motion to

compel to file dispositive motions. The parties’ request will be granted. The court will not

Case 2:87-cv-01623-FCD-KJM Document 431 Filed 09/30/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

schedule dates for the filing of pretrial statements or trial until after dispositive motions, if any,

are resolved. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 29, 2004 motion to compel is denied with the following

exceptions: 

A. Defendants shall make a reasonable effort to locate unredacted

copies of the documents identified on page 6, lines 8-18 of the

parties’ February 25, 2005 Joint Statement Regarding Discovery

Disputes, and provide them to plaintiff’s counsel within thirty

days. If after a reasonable effort, unredacted copies cannot be

located, counsel shall so certify to plaintiff, within the same thirty

day period. 

B. Defendants shall produce to plaintiff’s counsel the document

identified on page 7, line 17 of the parties’ February 25, 2005 Joint

Statement Regarding Discovery Disputes within ten days. 

Defendants may redact the following material from this document:

beginning on page 2, second full paragraph (beginning with the

words “First Item”) through and including the end of the second

full paragraph on page 4 (ending with the word “gang.”). Counsel

for plaintiff shall not show this document to anyone, including

plaintiff, without court order. 

2. All dispositive motions shall be filed within sixty days of defendants’

compliance with paragraph 1.A above.

DATED: September 30, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

pife1623.mtc

Case 2:87-cv-01623-FCD-KJM Document 431 Filed 09/30/05 Page 5 of 5