Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00640/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00640-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN ALEXANDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-0640 TLN CKD

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further production of documents came on regularly for 

hearing on November 18, 2015. Jeff Price, Ronald Kaye and Caitlin Weisberg appeared 

telephonically for plaintiffs. Peter Hirsig and Denise Serra appeared for defendants.

1

 Upon 

review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and 

good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The parties shall meet and confer regarding a stipulated protective order. If the parties 

cannot agree on the terms of such a protective order, plaintiffs shall submit their proposed version 

no later December 2, 2015. Defendants may file objections to plaintiffs’ proposed protective 

order no later than December 4, 2015.

 

1

 Defendant Lozano is represented by separate defense counsel. No appearance was made for 

this defendant.

Case 2:11-cv-00640-TLN-CKD Document 142 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2. The motion to compel (ECF No. 128) is granted in part. Defendants’ boilerplate 

objections are hereby stricken. With respect to the categories of documents identified in the joint 

statement (ECF No. 138 at 5:6-27), no later than December 11, 2015, defendants shall provide 

documents responsive to:

a. category C as identified in defendant Lozano’s responses to interrogatories;

b. category G comprised of diagrams for safety codes of the subject facility which 

are available to inmates or correctional officers, as discussed at the oral argument; 

c. category I; and

d. category K.

3. Based on the representation of defense counsel that all documents within the 

possession of defendant CDCR responsive to categories F and H are contained in the C-files 

which have previously been produced, no further production will be ordered with respect to these 

categories.

4. Based on the representation of defense counsel that all documents withheld from 

production responsive to categories A, B, D, and E have been identified on the supplemental 

privilege log, no further production will be ordered pending in camera review. Defendants shall, 

no later than November 30, 2015, submit for in camera review the documents identified on the 

supplemental privilege log and any other documents (in bate-stamped format) that have been 

withheld that are responsive to nos. 81-85 (category J--Lydon inmate assault documents).

5. Discovery produced pursuant to this order shall be produced in electronic format. The 

court declines to order defendants to produce an index of previously produced discovery.

6. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their request for expenses and accordingly no award of 

expenses incurred in connection with the motion will be made.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:11-cv-00640-TLN-CKD Document 142 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 3
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

7. Prior to the filing of any further motion to compel, the parties shall engage in the 

informal procedures for the resolution of discovery disputes set forth on the undersigned’s court 

website.

Dated: November 18, 2015

4 alexander0640.oah

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00640-TLN-CKD Document 142 Filed 11/19/15 Page 3 of 3