Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02953/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02953-3/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVON LAMAR TORBERT, CDCR #P96193,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

COMPLIANCE WITH 

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM 

[ ECF. NO. 72.]

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; MADSEN;

STORTON, BLACK; MIDECKE;

OGSBERT; JOHN DOES, 

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 2, 2012, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion to compel

compliance with a third-party records subpoena served on non-party, the San Diego County Citizen’s

Law Enforcement Review Board (“CLERB”). Plaintiff seeks photographs from the CLERB which

is an organization that conducts investigations into citizen complaints alleging misconduct by

representatives of the San Diego County Sheriff and Probation Departments. [Hunter Decl., ECF. No.

95-2, at 1:22-25.] Plaintiff contends he seeks “only the photos that were taken before signing the

waiver.” [ECF No. 72 at 2.] The photos were taken by the CLERB during the course of an

uncompleted investigation and may depict injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered at the hands of

defendants in the instant litigation. [ECF No. 72 at 2.] 

The CLERB opposes Plaintiff’s motion to compel on the ground that Plaintiff knowingly and

voluntarily waived his right to subpoena investigation records from the CLERB on June 30, 2009

when he filed a complaint with the CLERB and initiated a request for an investigation of officers

- 1 - 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 108 Filed 08/21/12 Page 1 of 4
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

employed by the Sheriff’s Department. [Defs. Oppo., ECF No. 95, at 2:22-3:3.] 

Plaintiff acknowledges his consent to the waiver1

 of any right he may have had to subpoena

the CLERB, yet argues the waiver he signed is invalid due to the fact that the CLERB investigation

he requested was begun but never completed. Plaintiff contends his agreement to waive the ability

to subpoena CLERB records was contingent upon CLERB actually completing an investigation. [ECF

No. 72 at pp.1-2.] Plaintiff challenges the characterization of the photographs he seeks as CLERB

records contending “the photos were taken before signing the waiver by CLERB’s private

investigator.” [Id. at 2.] Plaintiff also argues that even if the photographs he seeks are confidential,

their confidentiality must bow to his need to discover relevant evidence depicting the seriousness of

his injuries. [ECF No. 72 at pp. 2-3.] 

In response to Plaintiff’s contentions, the CLERB admits that an investigation in Plaintiff’s

complaint was never completed and explains Plaintiff’s file was closed without resolution because the

organization did not have the manpower to finish the investigation within the one-year time limit

imposed under California law. [Defs. Oppo., ECF No. 95, at 3:8-16.] CLERB argues that regardless

of the status of the investigation, the language of the waiver is clear and does not make waiver of any

right to subpoena records in discovery contingent upon the completion of an investigation. [Defs.

Oppo., ECF No. 95, at 3:6-7.] CLERB maintains that: (1) “the documents (photographs) for which

production is demanded in the Subpoena are CLERB records”; and (2) “before undertaking the

investigation of any complaint, CLERB requires a signed agreement from the complainant to not...

seek discovery of any CLERB records, and to waive any rights the complainant might otherwise have

to do so.” [Defs. Oppo., ECF No. 95, at 2:1-2; 2:24-28.] 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 45 - Subpoena

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 45 govern discovery from nonparties by subpoena.

1

In pertinent part, the Request for Investigation of Complaint & Agreement Not To Subpoena Citizen’s

Law Enforcement Review Board Personnel or Records states: “I understand that investigative records

associated with my complaint are confidential according to California law. By asking CLERB to investigate

my complaint against Sheriff’s Department sworn personnel, I agree not to subpoena or seek testimony from

any member of CLERB or its employees, or to seek the discovery of any CLERB records, and I hereby waive

any right I may otherwise have to do so.”

- 2 - 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 108 Filed 08/21/12 Page 2 of 4
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

See Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir.1994) (applying both rules

to motion to quash subpoena). Specifically, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(1)(c), any

party may serve a subpoena commanding a nonparty “to produce documents, electronically stored

information, or tangible things ....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(1)(C). The subpoena may command the

production of documents which are “not privileged” and are “relevant to any party's claim or defense”

or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).

Upon a timely motion, the court issuing such a subpoena shall quash or modify it if it determines that

the subpoena “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver

applies.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii).

B. Principles of Waiver 

“Waiver is the ‘intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right.’” United States v.

Fort, 472 F.3d 1106, 1120 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1580 (6th ed.1990). “The

Ninth Circuit has held that ‘[w]aiver occurs when there is an existing right, a knowledge of its

existence, and an actual intention to relinquish it, or conduct so inconsistent with the intent to enforce

the right as to induce a reasonable belief that it has been relinquished.’ “ In re County of Orange, 219

B.R. 543, 563 (Bkrtcy.C.D.Cal.1997) (quoting United States v. Reliance Ins. Co. ., 799 F.2d 1382,

1386 (9th Cir.1986)). “The determination of whether there is a waiver is usually a question of fact as

the question of intent necessarily depends on the factual circumstances of each case.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court shall quash subpoenas 

requiring disclosure of protected matter. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii). If the waiver signed by

Plaintiff is valid, the photographs taken by the CLERB investigator are protected from disclosure in

discovery because Plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly relinquished any right he may have had to

request the photographs.

It is clear from Plaintiff’s motion that he understood the form entitled “Request for

Investigation of Complaint & Agreement Not To Subpoena Citizen’s Law Enforcement Review Board

Personnel or Records” prohibited him from seeking documents or testimony from the CLERB. After

- 3 - 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 108 Filed 08/21/12 Page 3 of 4
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

careful consideration of the plain language of the waiver form, the Court has found no condition in

the form making waiver contingent on the completion of an investigation. Moreover, even if photos

of Plaintiff were taken by the CLERB investigator before the waiver was signed as Plaintiff contends,

Plaintiff still admittedly signed the waiver on June 30, 2009 thereby giving up any rights to discover

the photos or any other investigative records created by the CLERB. The Court declines to undertake

a balancing test weighing Plaintiff’s need for discovery against the CLERB’s duty to maintain the

privacy of peace office complaint records because Plaintiff was informed and knowingly waived his

right to attain investigative records of the CLERB. Plaintiff’s reference to the decision, Copley Press,

Inc. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. 4th 1272 (2006), is not persuasive. Copley Press involved a request for

disclosure of officer personnel records under the California Public Records Act. The news agency

requesting confidential records in Copley Press did not sign a waiver, which is the situation in the

instant case.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER THEREON

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with

the third-party records subpoena served on non-party, the San Diego County Citizen’s Law

Enforcement Review Board.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 21, 2012

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S.District Court

- 4 - 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 108 Filed 08/21/12 Page 4 of 4