Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02036/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02036-1/pdf.json

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

 The CDCR is not a party to this action. 1

 This matter was also set for further discovery conference on the same day. Outstanding 2

issues from the conference will be resolved by separate order.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE JETT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2036 GEB JFM P

vs.

M. PENNER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter came on for hearing on January 4, 2006 on plaintiff’s

motion to compel compliance with a Rule 45 subpoena issued to the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for production of plaintiff’s central file. Anthony P. 12

Schoenberg, Esq. appeared as counsel for plaintiff. James Walter, Deputy Attorney General,

appeared as counsel for defendants. Jeffrey Townsend, Esq. appeared as counsel for the CDCR. 

On November 3, 2006, plaintiff served on William O. Huddleston, the Litigation

Coordinator at Kern Valley State Prison, a subpoena to produce a complete copy of plaintiff’s

Case 2:02-cv-02036-GEB -JFM Document 100 Filed 01/12/07 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

 Plaintiff has served two Rule 45 subpoenas on the CDCR, seeking different documents 3

by each. The first subpoena also resulted in a motion to compel, which was resolved by order

filed December 18, 2006.

2

central file. (See Document # 98, filed January 5, 2007.) On November 27, 2006, CDCR served

an objection to the subpoena, contending that the request was “vague, ambiguous, overbroad and

burdensome in that a multitude of potentially responsive documents are being sought.” (See

Joint Statement Re Discovery Disputes, filed December 29, 2006, at 2.) The CDCR also asserted

absolute and conditional privileges, and stated that the request “lacked specificity.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on December 8, 2006.

The CDCR now contends that it is entitled to sovereign immunity under the

Eleventh Amendment and that said immunity bars enforcement of the instant Rule 45 subpoena. 

Plaintiff contends that the CDCR has waived any claim of immunity by producing documents in

response to plaintiff’s first subpoena, failing to assert the Eleventh Amendment as a defense to 3

plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with his first subpoena, and failing to raise the Eleventh

Amendment in its objections to the present subpoena. 

In support of its claim to immunity, the CDCR relies on Estate of Gonzalez v.

Hickman, F.Supp.2d , 2006 WL 3770978 (E.D.Cal. 2006). In Gonzalez, the district court

held that Rule 45 subpoenas issued to the state of California could not be enforced because state

was entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 4. The court held that

the provisions of California Government Code § 68097.1(b) did not constitute a waiver of

sovereign immunity, and that the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity set forth in Ex

Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), did not apply.

In the instant case, the court need not reach the question of whether Eleventh

Amendment immunity protects a state or its agencies from enforcement of a Rule 45 subpoena

because the CDCR has waived any claim to sovereign immunity from enforcement of a subpoena

for production of plaintiff’s central file in this action. 

Case 2:02-cv-02036-GEB -JFM Document 100 Filed 01/12/07 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

3

In United States v. James, 980 F.2d 1314 (9 Cir. 1992), the United States Court th

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an Indian tribe was entitled to immunity from

enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum issued by federal district court in criminal proceedings,

but that the tribe “expressly waived its immunity as to relevant documents in the possession” of

one of its agencies “by voluntarily providing the Government with documents relevant to the

case. (Id. at 1320.) The court of appeals held that the tribe could not “selectively provide

documents and then hide behind a claim of sovereign immunity when the defense requests

different documents from the same agency.” (Id.)

The record reveals that records from plaintiff’s central file have been provided to

defendants during the course of this action. (See Exs. C, D, and E in Support of Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 11, 2003.) The CDCR cannot provide documents

from plaintiff’s central file to defendants in this action and then claim sovereign immunity when

plaintiff seeks documents in that file. See James, supra.

The CDCR also contends that it is not required to comply with the subpoena

because the subpoena required production in San Francisco, more than 100 miles from the

location of the file. Rule 45(c)(3)(A) authorizes a court to, “on timely motion, . . . quash or

modify” a subpoena that “requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to

a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person” is located, and Rule 45(e)

provides that “[a]n adequate cause for failure to obey exists when a subpoena purports to require

a non-party to attend or produce at a place within the limits” set forth in Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). 

Rule 45(c)(2)(A) specifically provides that “[a] person commanded to produce and permit

inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, . . . need not

appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for

deposition, hearing or trial.” As a general proposition, these provisions are intended to protect a

non-party from “significant expense resulting from involuntary assistance to the court.”

(Advisory Committee Notes to 1991 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) At the hearing, plaintiff

Case 2:02-cv-02036-GEB -JFM Document 100 Filed 01/12/07 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

represented that he has tendered the cost of production of his central file. At the hearing, counsel

for the CDCR stated that he had a copy of the file in his possession at that time. There is no

requirement that any person travel to San Francisco to deliver the file, and the CDCR is not

excused from compliance with the subpoena on the ground that the central file is located more

than 100 miles from San Francisco.

The CDCR also contends that the subpoena is overbroad and should be limited to

documents referred to by plaintiff’s counsel in a letter sent to counsel for the CDCR with the

subpoena. This argument is simply without merit. The subpoena is clear: it seeks production of

plaintiff’s central file. Whether or not counsel engaged in discussions identifying particular

documents of interest in that file is irrelevant to the scope of the subpoena to be enforced by this

court.

Finally, the CDCR asserted several privileges in its objection to the subpoena. 

The CDCR has not complied with the requirements of Rule 45(d)(2) with regard to a claim of

privilege. However, the court is aware that inmate central files often contain documents that are

appropriately deemed confidential, and plaintiff has tendered a proposed protective order to

govern review and use of the documents contained in plaintiff’s central file. Good cause

appearing, the parties will be granted a period of five days in which to attempt to craft and

present to the court a proposed protective order. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 8, 2006 motion to compel is granted.

2. Within ten days from the date of this order the CDCR shall comply with the

Rule 45 subpoena served by plaintiff on November 3, 2006 by producing a complete copy of

plaintiff’s central file to plaintiff’s counsel of record.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02036-GEB -JFM Document 100 Filed 01/12/07 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

3. Plaintiff and the CDCR are granted five days in which to attempt to craft a

mutually acceptable proposed protective order governing review and use of the documents in

plaintiff’s central file. In any event, after five days the court will issue a protective order

governing review and use of the documents in plaintiff’s central file. 

DATED: January 11, 2007.

12

jett2036.mtc2

Case 2:02-cv-02036-GEB -JFM Document 100 Filed 01/12/07 Page 5 of 5