Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-319/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S JULY 25, 2013 ORDER

Plaintiffs moved to compel responses to requests for admission that asked the

Governor:

to admit the accuracy of statements ascribed to him in articles

published by the Sacramento Bee newspaper. Plaintiffs later

specified that the statements at issue were as follows:

1. “During the life of these lawsuits, the prison health care budget has gone from $700 million to $2 billion. . . . That money is

coming out of the university, it’s coming out of child care. It’s a

situation you wouldn’t dream anyone would want.”

2. Gov. Jerry Brown said Friday his administration will not comply

with a federal court order rejecting his effort to avoid reducing

California’s prison population, pledging to litigate “until the

Supreme Court tells us that we’re not on the right track.”

July 17, 2013 Joint Letter Br. at 1 (ECF No. 2676). On July 25, 2013, Magistrate Judge

Nathanael Cousins denied Plaintiffs’ motion. He concluded that:

[T]he requested admissions are not relevant because they are outside

the scope of the discovery that the plaintiffs requested and the court

permitted. Specifically, plaintiffs requested “an opportunity to

investigate the current conditions in the California state prisons.” 

The Governor’s statements to the press about the prisons are not

probative of the actual conditions of the prisons. The court might

take judicial notice that the Governor has made many statements to

the press about California’s prisons. As the saying goes, talk is

cheap. The imminent termination motion will not be decided based

on press conferences, but rather by evidence from the prisons.

July 25, 2013 Order Denying Pls.’ Req. for Admis. at 2 (ECF No. 2685).

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2727 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Plaintiffs timely moved for relief from the magistrate judge’s order, and the parties

filed timely briefs in response to this Court’s August 21, 2013 order. Plaintiffs have

abandoned their request as to the second statement and seek only to compel a response to the

request for admission as to the first statement listed above. This Court must “modify or set

aside any part of the [magistrate judge’s] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

The Court cannot make those findings here. First, the magistrate judge correctly

noted that Plaintiffs requested that discovery be reopened because they “must have an

opportunity to investigate the current conditions in the California state prisons.” Feb. 14,

2013 Pls.’ Mot. for Disc. at 2 (ECF No. 2534). Second, it was not clear error for the

magistrate judge to conclude that “statements to the press about the prisons are not probative

of the actual conditions of the prisons.” Third, even if the Court were to accept Plaintiffs’

contentions that discovery should extend beyond the current conditions of the prisons, what

the Governor says to the press is still not relevant. As the magistrate judge properly

concluded, “[t]he imminent termination motion will not be decided based on press

conferences, but rather by evidence from the prisons.” 

The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ motion appears to be not this particular request for

admission but, instead, that Defendants are refusing to provide other discovery based on the

magistrate judge’s order. Those issues are not before the Court, and if Plaintiffs seek to

compel responses to other discovery requests, they must first present those disputes to the

magistrate judge. Any disputes over the scope of permissible discovery should also be

brought before the magistrate judge in the first instance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/02/13 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2727 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 2