Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01682/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01682-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances underlying 1

the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BARBARA WOOD, the estate of EDNA

MURILLO, and RICHARD WOOD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VISTA MANOR NURSING CENTER

LIFE GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE,

INC., and ABIGAIL MOSS

Defendants.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-01682-JW (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA

TO PROJECT SENTINEL 

I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Barbara Wood, Richard Wood, and the estate of Edna Murillo (collectively,

“Plaintiffs”) allege that Vista Manor Nursing Center, Life Generations Healthcare, Inc., and

Abigail Moss (collectively, “Defendants”) discriminated against Murillo on the basis of her

disability by refusing her housing on account of her being HIV positive. Project Sentinel was 1

originally a plaintiff in this action, but dismissed its claims and is no longer a party. 

On March 13, 2007, the parties and Project Sentinel appeared before Magistrate Judge

Patricia V. Trumbull for hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 40 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 8
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 Project Sentinel refuses to produce documents responsive to 30 of the 107 requests in the 2

subpoena (Request Nos. 18, 29, 30, 41, 42, 53, 54, 65, 66, 77, 85, and 89-107).

ORDER, page 2

to Project Sentinel.

On January 30, 2007, Defendants filed their Motion to Compel Compliance with

Subpoena to Project Sentinel and Request for Sanctions. Project Sentinel filed their opposition

on February 12, 2007. Defendants filed their reply on February 26, 2007. Defendants’ motion

seeks to compel Project Sentinel to produce, without a protective order, all the documents

requested in the subpoena.

On February 26, 2007, the court issued an Interim Order stating that “Plaintiffs and

Defendants shall make a good faith effort to work together on a protective order and they shall

submit to the court for review and signature a form of protective order consistent with the terms

of the model stipulated protective order found on the court’s website.” Further, Defendants’

request for sanctions was denied, without prejudice to a motion brought separately, as required

by Civil Local Rule 7-8(a). On March 2, 2007, in response to the parties’ and Project Sentinel’s

misinterpretation of the Interim Order, the court issued a Clarification of Interim Order

confirming that it is the duty of the parties of the case to determine the handling of confidential

information exchanged in discovery. 

For the following reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is

granted in part and denied in part as follows.

II. DISCUSSION

On December 13, 2006, Defendants served a subpoena duces tecum on Project Sentinel. 

(Defendants’ Motion to Compel, Exhibit A). On January 3, 2007, Project Sentinel faxed a letter

to Defense counsel in which it asserted objections, but agreed to produce some of the requested

documents subject to a protective order. In this motion, Defendants seek to compel Project

Sentinel’s compliance with the subpoena duces tecum. This dispute involves two categories of

documents, those related to the investigation into Vista Manor that Project Sentinel agreed to

produce subject to a protective order, and those not directly related to the Vista Manor case that

Project Sentinel claim are unduly burdensome and refuse to produce. The only remaining issue 2

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 40 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 8
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

ORDER, page 3

relating to the first category of documents is the language of one paragraph of the protective

order. The second category of documents involves five general topics: (1) payments to testers

and tests of other nursing centers conducted by specific testers; (2) testing reports submitted to

AIDS Legal Services; (3) cost to Project Sentinel from Defendants’ actions; (4) HIV disability

lawsuits; and (5) all testing of specific nursing homes. 

A. Documents Project Sentinel Agreed to Produce Subject to a Protective Order

1. Terms of Stipulated Protective Order

Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed to all the terms of the court’s model stipulated protective

order except the language of Section 5, which governs designation of protected material. 

Defendants proposed modifying Section 5 to require production prior to designation:

5.1 Prior to designating any material for protection, a Designating Party

shall provide the documents to the Non-Designating Party they propose are

to be designated for production. The Non-Designating Party will agree not

to disclose the documents and treat them as protected. After the NonDesignating Party reviews the documents and if the Non-Designating Party

disagrees with the designation it shall meet and confer with the

Designating Party and follow the procedure in Section 6 of this agreement.

(Defendants’ Proposed Stipulated Protective Order, Section 5.1). Defendants’ proposal is similar

to the model order in that documents will be treated as confidential until a court rules on any

disputes. Defendants’ proposed language merely prevents “designation.” The exchange of

undesignated documents would increase the danger of confusion and inadvertent disclosure. 

Project Sentinel and Plaintiffs claim that Defendants, if given the opportunity, intend to publicize

Project Sentinel’s documents on the internet to expose Project Sentinel’s methods and practices. 

Defendants neither admit nor deny this accusation. In light of the limited benefit and potential

detriment of adding Defendants’ proposed language, the language of the court’s model stipulated

protective order for Section 5 shall apply in this case.

2. Documents Already Produced to Defendants 

At the hearing, Plaintiffs stated that they had already provided Defendants with

documents relating to Project Sentinel’s testing of Vista Manor Nursing Center; specifically, test

results, tester instruction sheets, and the tester payment records. The personal information on the

documents was redacted. Plaintiffs argue that all documents, even those already produced,

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 40 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 8
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

 The hearing revealed to the court that the parties failed to properly meet and confer. Before 3

the filing any future motions, whether to de-designate documents or otherwise, the parties shall

meet face to face and make good a good faith effort to resolve the dispute, or portions thereof,

without involving the court. 

ORDER, page 4

should be subject to the protective order. Because the court does not have sufficient facts to

determine whether documents produced prior to the filing of a protective order should be covered

by the protective order, all documents are protected by the protective order, subject to a motion to

de-designate them. 

3

B. Document Requests Project Sentinel Claim are Unduly Burdensome

1. Legal Standards

“On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the

subpoena if it . . . requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception of

waiver applies, or subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii) and (iv). 

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim

or defense of any party.” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) emphasis added). “For good cause, the court

may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” (Id.).

When the subpoena requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research or

information:

the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena,

quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena

is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot

be otherwise met with undue hardship and assures that the person to who

the subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may

order appearance or production only upon specified conditions.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B). A non-party subject to a subpoena may object to documents sought

in a subpoena on the basis of lack of relevance. The “relevance of the subpoenaed information

has an important bearing upon the determination of a claim that a subpoena duces tecum is

unreasonable or oppressive, as well as to a claim of confidentiality for the material sought to be

produced, and that a sufficient showing of need for the information will suffice to overcome such

objections.” Compaq Computer Corp. V. Packard Bell Electronics, Inc., 163 F.R.D. 329, 335

(N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting New York State Energy Research v. Nuclear Fuel Service, 97 F.R.D.

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 40 Filed 03/16/07 Page 4 of 8
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 Specified Project Sentinel employees - Sara Rowland (Request No. 18), Nancy Lowe (No. 4

30), Shawna Reeves (No. 42), Ann Marquart (No. 54) and Gabe Zwettler (No. 66).

ORDER, page 5

709, 712 (W.D.N.Y.1983). Additionally, “if the sought-after documents are not relevant nor

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then any burden whatsoever imposed

upon [the non-party] would be by definition ‘undue’. Thus, [the non-party] has standing to assert

that the subpoenaed information is irrelevant.” Compaq Computer Corp., 163 F.R.D. at 335-36.

2. Burden Asserted by Project Sentinel

Project Sentinel argues that the subpoena seeks information that is not relevant to the

claims and defenses in this action and is unduly burdensome. Project Sentinel claims that

disclosure of the requested tests and investigations, unrelated to Vista Manor, would hinder their

ability to conduct future testing. They further argue that disclosing the requested information

would, without need or justification, invade the privacy of many parties with no connection to

this case.

Project Sentinel also claims that it would be difficult and unnecessarily time consuming

to locate and compile the information requested by Defendants because they have no centralized

system to track reports done by individual testers. Project Sentinel also notes that they conduct a

large number of investigations, approximately one hundred, covering a variety of fair housing

issues. According to Project Sentinel, locating the information requested by Defendants could

only be accomplished though review of all of their case files since 2000. 

At the hearing, Defendants limited their requests to investigations and testing relating to

HIV and AIDS disability discrimination in nursing facilities in the South Bay. This limitation

significantly decreases the number of case files that Project Sentinel would have to review in

order to locate the requested information.

3. Burden vs. Relevance by Request Topics

a. Request Numbers 18, 29, 30, 41, 42, 53, 54, 65, 66, and 77

Request Numbers 18, 30, 42, 54 and 66 seek “Any and all DOCUMENTS reflecting

payments made from YOU to [employee name ] from 2000 to present.” Request Numbers 29, 4

41, 53, 65 and 77 seek “Any and all DOCUMENTS which reflect, evidence or mention tests

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 40 Filed 03/16/07 Page 5 of 8
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 Specified Project Sentinel employees - Sara Rowland (Request No. 29), Nancy Lowe (No. 5

41), Shawna Reeves (No. 53), Ann Marquart (No. 65) and Gabe Zwettler (No. 77)

ORDER, page 6

conducted by [employee name ] on YOUR behalf from 2000 to the present.” 5

Defendants argue that they need more than just the tests conducted on Vista Manor in

order to challenge the credibility of the Project Sentinel’s testing. Defendants further argue that

payments to these Project Sentinel employees are relevant and necessary because such

information would give indications as to the training and skill level of the testers.

Such slight relevance is outweighed by the burden to Project Sentinel of producing all

documents relating to all payments to all testers. Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall not be compelled

to respond to Request Numbers 18, 29, 30, 41, 42, 53, 54, 65, 66, and 77.

b. Request Number 85

Request Number 85 seeks “Any and all DOCUMENTS which reflect, evidence or

mention testing reports submitted to AIDS Legal Services in the year 2004.”

Defendants argue that this information is relevant and necessary to evaluate the credibility

and validity of Project Sentinel’s testing. Project Sentinel does not articulate any specific burden

associated with producing these documents. Accordingly, Project Sentinel shall produce

documents responsive to Request Number 85, subject to the protective order. 

c. Request Numbers 89 to 92

Request Number 89 seeks:

Any and all DOCUMENTS which reflect, evidence or mention that

Defendant Vista Manor Nursing Center’s actions have perceptually

impaired and frustrated YOUR mission of eliminating discriminatory

housing practices against persons based on their disability by requiring

YOU to expend resources on programs and activities to counteract

Defendant Vista Manor Nursing Center’s discriminatory housing

practices.

Request Number 90 seeks the same documents relating to Life Generations’ actions.

Request Number 91 seeks:

Any and all DOCUMENTS which reflect, evidence or mention that

Defendant Vista Manor Nursing Center’s discriminatory actions have

forced YOU to devote YOUR scarce resources away from other activities

YOU would have undertaken such as counseling, educational programs

and outreach to identify and counter act Defendant Vista Manor Nursing

Center’s unlawful housing practices.

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 40 Filed 03/16/07 Page 6 of 8
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

 Named Healthcare Centers: Oak Meadows Extended Care Center (No. 94), Terreno Gardens 6

Extended Care Center (No. 95), Mission de la Case Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (No. 96),

San Tomas Convalescent Hospital (No. 97), Winchester Convalescent Hospital (No. 98),

Subacute Saratoga Hospital (No. 99), Skyline HealthCenter - San Jose (No. 100), Silicon Valley

Care Center (No. 101), Westgate Rehabilitation and Specialty Care Ctr. (No. 102), Empress Care

Center, LLC (No. 103), Valley House Care Center (No. 104), Almaden Health and Rehabilitation

Center (No. 105), Courtyard Care Center (No. 106), Sunnyvale Healthcare Center (No. 107).

ORDER, page 7

Request Number 92 seeks the same documents relating to Life Generations’ actions.

Project Sentinel correctly argues that information responsive to these requests is wholly

inapplicable to the present dispute since it concerns the basis for a claim of damages, something a

non-party like Project Sentinel does not, and cannot, seek in this action. Accordingly, any burden

is undue and the motion is denied as to Request Numbers 89, 90, 91 and 92. 

d. Request Number 93

Request Number 93 seeks “All lawsuit(s) filed by YOU for HIV disability housing

discrimination from 2000 to the present.”

Defendants argue that this information is discoverable because it is public information

and is likely to assist in preparing for trial or settlement. Defendants do not seek all lawsuits

filed by Project Sentinel since 2000, rather their request is limited to lawsuits for HIV disability

housing discrimination. Defendants argue that this information would provide them valuable

insight into Project Sentinel’s credibility and any potential flaws in Project Sentinel’s testing and

investigations. Project Sentinel argues that their previous lawsuits have no bearing on the claims

and defenses in this action, but have articulated no specific burden. 

Because these documents are reasonably calculated to lend to the discovery of admissible

evidence and the burden is small, Project Sentinel shall provide Defendants with a list of the HIV

disability housing discrimination lawsuits they have filed from 2000 to the present.

e. Request Numbers 94 to 107

Request Numbers 94 to 107 seek “Any and all DOCUMENTS which reflect, evidence or

mention tests conducted by YOU of [Care Center name ] for HIV disability housing 6

discrimination from 2003 to the present.” 

Weighing the burden against the benefit, the motion is granted, as modified to documents

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 40 Filed 03/16/07 Page 7 of 8
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

ORDER, page 8

which reflect, evidence, or mention tests conducted by Project Sentinel, on nursing centers

located in the South Bay, for HIV disability housing discrimination from 2003 to the present. 

C. Documents Withheld as Privileged Information

Project Sentinel has withheld a limited number of documents under a claim of attorney

client privilege or work product immunity. (See Privilege Log, White Decl., Ex. B). Defendants

objected, claiming that any communications between Project Sentinel and Plaintiffs could not be

privileged. Project Sentinel’s privilege log does not provide enough information to allow the

court to determine whether these documents are privileged. Therefore, Project Sentinel shall

provide a new privilege log that complies Rule 26(b)(5).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ proposed modification of Section 5 of the court’s model protective

order is Denied;

2. The parties shall treat the Project Sentinel documents previously produced as

protected by the protective order, subject to a motion to de-designate them;

3. Defendants’ Motion is Denied in Part, without prejudice as to privileged

documents and Project Sentinel shall provide a new privilege log in compliance

with Rule 26(b)(5);

4. Defendants’ Motion is Denied in Part as to Request Numbers 18, 29, 30, 41, 42,

53, 54, 65, 66, 77 and 89 to 92;

5. Defendants’ Motion is Granted in Part in that Project Sentinel shall produce

documents responsive to Request Number 85, subject to the protective order, and

Request Number 93; and

6. Defendants’ Motion is Modified and Granted in Part as to Request Numbers 94 to

107 in that Project Sentinel shall produce documents which reflect, evidence, or

mention tests conducted by Project Sentinel, on nursing centers located in the

South Bay, for HIV disability housing discrimination from 2003 to the present. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: 3/16/07

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 40 Filed 03/16/07 Page 8 of 8