Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03995/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03995-11/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

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)

CORRECTED ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

AND GRANTING REQUEST FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Before me is a motion filed by the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) to quash

plaintiff’s subpoenas served on the Department and the Salinas

Valley State Prison (Prison). The subpoenas seek the

production of documents relating to the “Green Wall” and to

the Department’s standards and practices of cell extraction. 

For the following reasons, the motion to quash is DENIED.

I agree with plaintiff that the documents requested are

relevant for discovery purposes and reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Department’s arguments that it enjoys

sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and that it is

not subject to the subpoenas based on state law privileges are

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 150 Filed 10/26/07 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

1 Although they cite 5 U.S.C. § 552 in support of

their argument, respondents are not a federal agency, person,

or party, and have made no showing that this section should

apply to them. See 5 U.S.C. § 551.

2

rejected for reasons stated in my prior discovery Order

(Docket No. 114).

The Department’s burden arguments are not persuasive. 

Plaintiff is not requesting a broad array of documents or

irrelevant personnel files, but documentation about, and

specific portions of personnel files that refer to, the

alleged “Green Wall” from 1999 to the present, and cell

extraction procedures in effect during January 2002. The

Department has failed to establish that production of these

documents would be burdensome or violate the specific

correctional officers’ rights of privacy as recognized in

federal court.

The Department argues that to comply with plaintiff’s

subpoenas would violate the official information privilege

covering investigatory files.1 To assert an official

information privilege, the Department must file an objection

that specifically states the harm that could result from

releasing the requested materials, accompanied by a

declaration from a responsible official with personal

knowledge of the principal matters to be attested to in the

affidavit. See Young v. Hernandez, No. 05-CV-2375 W(CAB),

2007 WL 935594, at *2 (S.D. Cal. March 26, 2007)(citing Kelly

v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 669 (N.D. Cal. 1987)). A

declaration from the lawyer representing the agency does not

suffice. Id. The Department knows how to invoke the privilege.

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 150 Filed 10/26/07 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

See Young v. Hernandez, 207 WL 935594 at *2 (A declaration of

the Department’s Custodian of Records who personally viewed

the materials and explained how their disclosure would impact

the Department and the public met the threshold). Once a

party has met the threshold, the disclosure of official

documents is determined under a “balancing approach that is

moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure.” Id. 

Here, the Department has objected to the subpoenas,

contending that producing the subpoenaed documents would

seriously jeopardize the security of the institution. 

However, it has not provided a declaration from a responsible

official with personal knowledge of these matters. The

Department’s attorney’s one sentence conclusion in his

declaration is wholly inadequate. See Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at

669. Therefore, the Department has not met the threshold

requirement and I need not to apply the balancing test. 

To the extent the Department has raised serious security

concerns, I am satisfied they are addressed if the documents

are produced pursuant to the “Attorneys Eyes Only” protective

order entered on July 18, 2007 (Docket No. 115). 

For these reasons, the Department’s motion to quash the

subpoenas is DENIED and its request for a protective order is

GRANTED. The October 31, 2007 hearing is VACATED.

Dated: October 26, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\TODD\CORRECTED ORDER DENYING TO QUASH.wpd

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 150 Filed 10/26/07 Page 3 of 3