Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02656/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02656-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1442aaf Petition for Removal - Agst members of armed forces

---

1

15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE CAVNER, an individual,; and 

BETH CAVNER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

AIRBORNE SYSTEMS NORTH 

AMERICA OF CA, INC.; HUNTER 

DEFENSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. dba 

HDT GLOBAL; and DOES 1 through 

20,,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. 

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO 

PRODUCE DOCUEMTNS

[ECF No. 34.]

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is Defendant Airborne Systems North America of CA, 

Inc. (“Airborne”) motion for order directing the U.S. Secretary of Navy to produce 

government documents related to the accident which is the subject of the instant lawsuit. 

[ECF No. 34.] In the motion, Airborne seeks un-redacted responses to document 

requests served on the General Counsel of the Navy via subpoena pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 45. 

The Plaintiffs in this wrongful death action are the parents of U.S. Navy Chief 

Petty Officer Bradley Cavner. Officer Cavner was accidentally killed during a 

Case 3:15-cv-02656-LAB-BGS Document 48 Filed 08/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

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

parachuting exercise. Plaintiffs contend the reserve parachuting system worn by their son 

was defectively designed. Given the subject matter of the lawsuit, Defendant Airborne

asserts the requested documents are relevant and needed to “analyze the circumstances 

surrounding the deployment of the T-11R reserve parachute ... [in particular] 

government documents regarding the MC-6 Personnel Parachute System and T-11R 

reserve parachute (including records related to the training of military personnel with 

respect to the packing, maintenance, and operation of the T-11R, and the investigation of 

the subject incident.” [ECF No. 34 at p. 2, fn 1.] 

II. FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 45

Rule 45 governs subpoenas, the method used to gather discovery and testimony 

from non-parties. Fed R. Civ. P. 45(a). A non-party subpoenaed to produce documents 

may object to production and the requesting party may thereafter move for an order 

compelling production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i-ii). Under Rule 45, subpoenaed 

documents may properly be withheld based on a claim of privilege. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(e)(2)(A). Accordingly, Rule 45 provides that a subpoena must be quashed when it 

requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter if no exception or waiver 

applies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii). In the alternative, in situations where the Court 

is not required to quash or modify the subpoena, the court may order that the non-party 

produce documents if the party serving the subpoena establishes a substantial need for the 

material that cannot otherwise be met without undue hardship. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(d)(C)(i).

III. BACKGROUND

Airborne served its subpoena on the General Counsel of the Navy on February 25, 

2016. [Ex. A to Jennifer Vagle, Esq., Decl.] On March 21, 2016, the Navy objected to 

Airborne’s subpoena based on third-party privacy concerns under the Privacy Act, 5 

U.S.C. § 552a. [Ex. B. to Vagle Decl.] On April 26, 2016, Airborne responded to the 

Navy’s objection and noted that the documents sought concerned a deceased individual, 

therefore Privacy Act rights were not implicated. [EC. C. to Vagle Decl.] On May 11, 

Case 3:15-cv-02656-LAB-BGS Document 48 Filed 08/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

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

2016, the Navy’s Office of the Judge Advocate General responded to Airborne’s 

correspondence via email stating: 

“Regarding your question about the Privacy Act (PA) and its applicability to 

records of the deceased, you are 100% correct that PA does not protect personal 

information of deceased individuals. However, information about 3rd parties is 

still protected and cannot be released absent a judge-signed court order or 

unless some other PA exception applies. So, while we can certainly process 

your request and provide you with the records you need, the names, 

addresses, social security numbers , and other information of 3rd parties will 

have to be redacted. I imagine that you require unredacted copies but, if you 

do not, please let me know.”

[Ex. D to Vagle Decl.][emphasis added.]

On May 31, 2016, Ms. Vagle responded via email to the Navy’s Office of the 

Judge Advocate General stating:

“I understand the Navy is concerned that responsive documents may implicate 

third party privacy interests, but a court order will streamline the production process. 

Accordingly, we have prepared a motion for entry of court order to produce the 

subpoenaed documents.” 

[Ex. D to Vagle Decl.]

In response to the attached draft motion, the Navy’s Office of the Judge Advocate 

General stated:

“Thank you for sending these our way. I only have one recommended change. 

The last paragraph of the Memo of PsAs reads: ‘Because the Navy maintains that 

the requested records [cannot] be released absent a judge-signed court order, 

Airborne respectfully requests that the Order be issued.’ I recommend changing it

to: ‘Because the Navy maintains that unredacted records may not be released 

absent a judge-signed court order, Airborne respectfully requests that the Order 

be issued.’ The court-order will allow us to release PA protected information. Of 

Case 3:15-cv-02656-LAB-BGS Document 48 Filed 08/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

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

course, the documents will still have to be reviewed for any classified or 

privileged information. I don’t know of any classified information contained 

in any of the documents; we will have to address that issue should it come up. 

I do believe that some of the records may be protected by the safety privilege. 

Those documents will be identified by the Navy Safety Center and a letter 

informing you of the basis for withholding any documents will be provided by 

them.”

[Ex. E to Vagle Decl.][emphasis added.]

Airborne filed its motion to compel on June 3, 2016 and the District Court referred 

this motion to Magistrate Judge Skomal on June 6, 2016. [ECF Nos. 34 and 38.] This 

Court issued a hearing date and briefing schedule on June 9, 2016. [ECF No. 40.] No 

opposition brief was received, therefore this matter was taken under submission pursuant 

to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1) on July 6, 2016. [ECF No. 44.]

IV. DISCUSSION AND ORDER THEREON

As explained in the Standard of Review Section above, Rule 45 explicitly states 

that subpoenaed documents may properly be withheld based on a claim of privilege and 

indeed the Rule provides that a subpoena must be quashed when it requires disclosure of 

privileged or other protected matter and no exception applies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(d)(3)(A)(iii);Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)(A). From the exhibits provided in support of 

Airborne’s motion, it appears that the Navy has legitimately objected to Airborne’s 

subpoena on the basis of other third-party privacy interests unrelated to the deceased 

which may be present in the requested documents. Nevertheless, the Navy did offer to 

produce redacted documents. In its apparent haste to move the processing of its requests

along, Airborne refused to take the Navy up on its May 11, 2016 email offer to provide 

redacted documents and instead filed the instant motion. This procedural choice is 

puzzling to the Court, however, because the Court cannot intelligently order that alleged 

Privacy Act protected information is either, not protected, or should otherwise be released 

when: (1) Airborne has not received any documents; therefore it does not know what 

Case 3:15-cv-02656-LAB-BGS Document 48 Filed 08/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

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

would have been redacted and whether such redacted information is even needed; and (2) 

Airborne has not received a privilege log specifically identifying the privileged 

documents at issue and the basis, valid or not, for redactions or withholding. 

It is clear from the Navy’s May 11, 2016 email that the Navy has asserted 

additional grounds for redaction or withholding, including that the documents may be 

classified or protected under the safety privilege. Yet, Airborne’s motion fails to provide 

the Court with any information whatsoever about what the non-party production contains

or may contain. Consequently, there is no mechanism for the Court to even conduct an in 

camera review to assess the applicability of the Privacy Act or other privileges asserted. 

Airborne has not met its burden of showing that the Navy’s objection on the basis 

of protecting the third-party privacy rights of other persons (who are unrelated to the 

deceased, but named in responsive documents), is inapplicable or waived. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(d)(3)(A)(iii). Airborne has also failed to establish a substantial need for unredacted 

documents that cannot otherwise be met without undue hardship. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(d)(C)(i). Accordingly, Airborne’s motion to compel the production of unredacted 

documents in response to its Rule 45 subpoena is DENIED. Airborne may re-file a 

motion to compel compliance with its Rule 45 subpoena after it receives redacted 

responsive documents and a supporting privilege log, which the Court must have in order 

to appropriately apply Rules 45 and 26 and meaningfully assess the applicability of any 

alleged privileges. 

Dated: August 1, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02656-LAB-BGS Document 48 Filed 08/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5