Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03995/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03995-21/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 In a matter referred under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a

magistrate judge has the power to certify to a district judge

facts supporting the entry of a judgment of contempt for

disobedience of a lawful order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B). 

The district judge shall thereupon hear the evidence as to the

act or conduct complained of and, if it is such as to warrant

punishment, punish such person in the same manner and to the

same extent as for a contempt committed before a district

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)

CERTIFICATION OF FACTS RE

CONTEMPT

I HEREBY CERTIFY the following facts to the Honorable

Saundra Brown Armstrong in support of an entry of a judgment

of civil contempt against the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDC) and Salinas Valley State

Prison (Salinas) and/or their attorneys of record, McNamara,

Dodge, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Pfalzer, Borges & Brothers,

LLP.1

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 228 Filed 01/22/08 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

27

28 judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6).

2

 1. In this action, plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. On June 20, 2007, Judge Armstrong referred all

discovery disputes to me.

 2. On September 18, 2007, the CDC which includes Salinas,

third parties to the instant suit, filed a motion to quash

subpoenas served on them on or about August 23, 2007 by

plaintiff. (Docket Nos. 120 - 122.) Alternatively, the CDC

requested a protective order.

 3. On October 26, 2007, I denied the CDC's motion to

quash the subpoenas with respect to documents from 1999 to

present in the custody of the CDC and Salinas regarding the

alleged "Green Wall" and granted the CDC's request for a

protective order ordering that all documents be produced

pursuant to the "Attorneys Eyes Only" protective order entered

on July 25, 2007. (Docket Nos. 116 & 150.)

 4. On December 21, 2007, plaintiff requested a conference

to discuss what he perceived as non compliance with my October

26, 2007 Order. Following a hearing on January 8, 2008, I

issued an Order Compelling Further Discovery. (Docket No. 

195.) I ordered the CDC and Salinas to produce any further

documents they had located in response to the subpoenas by

noon on January 10, 2008. I also gave plaintiff leave to

depose the custodians of records for the CDC and Salinas if he

was not satisfied with their production in order to obtain

testimony regarding the search for the subpoenaed documents

and any basis for the conclusion that no further documents

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 228 Filed 01/22/08 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

27

28

3

exist. I ordered that if such depositions were necessary,

they were to be concluded by January 17, 2008. 

 5. At a further telephonic hearing on January 10, 2008, I

reaffirmed that the CDC and Salinas had to produce their

custodians of record for depositions pursuant to my January 8,

2008 Order Compelling Further Discovery, in the event

plaintiff was not satisfied with the document production. 

 6. On January 16, 2008 counsel for the CDC and Salinas

wrote that his clients had located an investigative report

regarding the "Green Wall" prepared by the Office of Internal

Affairs. (Docket No. 213.) He requested that the report be

specifically protected by a protective order, that his client

be provided additional time to produce the report and that

plaintiff be given additional time to depose the custodians.

 7. On January 16, 2008 counsel for plaintiff wrote

stating that counsel for the CDC and Salinas were still not

complying with my Orders. (Document No. 214)

 8. On January 16, 2007 I issued another Discovery Order

directing the CDC and Salinas to produce all "Green Wall"

documents responsive to the subpoenas immediately and to

designate those documents as "Confidential - Attorneys Eyes

Only" pursuant to the July 25, 2007 protective order. (Docket

No. 215.) I also provided the CDC and Salinas with an

additional day, to January 18, 2008, in which to produce their

custodians of records for deposition.

 9. On January 17, 2008 counsel for plaintiff wrote

attaching a letter from counsel for the CDC and Salinas

stating that they would not produce the custodians for

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 228 Filed 01/22/08 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

27

28

4

depositions and they would seek review of the previous orders. 

(Docket No. 223.)

 10. On January 18, 2008, I issued an Order of Intent to

Certify Contempt based on the CDC and Salinas' refusal to

comply with my previous orders. (Docket Nos. 224.) I noted

that this discovery dispute had been brewing for months and

that the February 11, 2008 trial date was fast approaching. 

In the event that the discovery ordered in my previous orders

was not completed by 5 p.m. on that day, I ordered plaintiff's

counsel to prepare a declaration of facts of the CDC and

Salinas' non-compliance.

11. On January 18, 2008, plaintiff’s counsel filed such

a Declaration. (Docket no. 225.) Plaintiff’s counsel

declared that the CDC did not produce the Internal Affairs

report regarding the “Green Wall” until after 5 p.m., in

violation of my numerous previous orders. Plaintiff’s counsel

further declares that the report “is heavily redacted to the

point of virtual unusability.” Id. Based on plaintiff’s

counsel’s brief initial review of the report, it appears that

the CDC redacted all the names of the correctional officers

who were alleged to have been members of the “Green Wall” as

well as the names of those interviewed for the report. Id. at

¶ 3, f. The report also allegedly refers to documents relied

on to prepare the report which were not produced. Id. The

CDC’s and Salinas’ repeated refusals to produce all documents

from 1999 to present relating the “Green Wall” is a clear

violation of my previous orders, as is the failure to produce

their custodians of records for deposition after plaintiff

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 228 Filed 01/22/08 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

27

28

5

demanded such depositions. 

Under these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to

certify this matter to Judge Armstrong’s authority under 28

U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii) to issue an order of civil contempt

for failure to comply with my previous discovery orders. 

Dated: January 22, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\TODD\CERT.FACTS.CONTEMPT.BZ.wpd

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 228 Filed 01/22/08 Page 5 of 5