Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00032/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00032-21/pdf.json

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

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD TAYLOR,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-00032-AWI-SMS

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

AND TO STRIKE OBJECTIONS

(Doc. 45)

ORDER OFFICIALLY STAYING ALL

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

DATES (Doc. 64) (including):

Settlement Conference Date: 

3/18/10, 10:30am, Ctrm. 7/SMS

Pre-Trial Conference Date:

7/30/10, 8:30am, Ctrm. 2/AWI

Trial Date: 9/8/10, 8:30am,

Ctrm. 2/AWI (JT ~ 3-4 days)

ORDER DEEMING STIPULATION AND

PROPOSED ORDER MOOT (Doc. 75)

On August 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel

discovery responses and to strike objections (Doc. 45). The

hearing was continued from August 28, 2009 to October 23, 2009

based on an erroneous notice filed on August 21, 2009 (Docs. 48,

49). The matter came on regularly on October 23, 2009 at 10:30

a.m. (Doc. 56). The Court met informally with Plaintiff’s

1

Case 1:07-cv-00032-AWI -SMS Document 76 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 6
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

counsel, Carter Capps White, certified law students, Kelli Smith

and Rebecca Hayes, and Defendants’ counsel, Michelle L. Angus, in

chambers for approximately two (2) hours (Doc. 59). Resolutions

were reached regarding some disputes, and the Court agreed to

review in camera various personnel files and internal affairs

reports, thereafter ruling as to the discoverability of each such

document and/or categories of documents. 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the following is ORDERED produced:

POD 9: All documents relating to any policy on use of

force in effect at SATF at the time of the incident.

Ruling: At issue is the March 2005 Use of Force Lesson

Plan for new, non-custody employees. The Court reviewed the

entire lesson plan. Though there appear to be sections and/or

portions that may well not be relevant to the precise issues of

this lawsuit, nonetheless the Court finds it to be tedious and a

waste of time to redact those questionable portions. Therefore,

the Court ORDERS the entire Plan discoverable subject to the/a

protective order, directing Plaintiff’s counsel that this

production is for use in this case only; that no copies of this

lesson plan are to be made for use in any other lawsuit; that any

and all copies made for use in this litigation be destroyed or

returned to Defendants’ counsel at the conclusion of this case;

AND, that Plaintiff himself is to receive no copies nor review

this lesson plan at any time. 

POD 19: All documents relating to any review or evaluation

of the job performance of Defendants Clark, Adams, McKesson or

Wofford during his/her employment with CDCR and SATF.

//

2

Case 1:07-cv-00032-AWI -SMS Document 76 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 6
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

Ruling: The request was withdrawn by stipulation as to

Defendants Clark and Adams. Copies of the personnel files for

Defendants McKesson and Wofford were received for review. The

Court reviewed said personnel files, isolated all those entries 

believed are responsive to this POD, tabbed them, and will return

the entire files, directing counsel for Defendants to copy and

produce those which are tabbed.

POD 20: All documents relating to any investigation of

Defendants Clark, Adams, McKesson or Wofford for any act that

occurred during his/her employment with CDCR and SATF, including

but not limited to the results of each investigation and incident

reports relating to each investigation.

Ruling: Again, the request was withdrawn by stipulation as

to Defendants Clark and Adams. By October 28, 2009 memorandum

from K. Barkhurst, Internal Affairs Office Technician, to J.

Cordova, Litigation Coordinator, California Substance Abuse

Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran, “[T]he Internal

Affairs Unit checked the investigative log and was unable to find

cases regarding Wofford.” Absent a showing by Defendants that

this averment is unfounded, the Court accepts as true that there

are no discoverable documents relative to Defendant Wofford.

With regard to Defendant McKesson, ten (10) cases

were identified and documents produced regarding all ten (10)

cases. As the Court opined during the February 8, 2010

conference call with all parties represented (Doc. 73), the Court

began reading each and every “packet” and became increasingly

frustrated with the inability to isolate or identify which

incident was being addressed, i.e., which inmate was involved,

3

Case 1:07-cv-00032-AWI -SMS Document 76 Filed 03/15/10 Page 3 of 6
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

etc. Counsel for Defendants graciously acknowledged the often

times awkward manner in which reports/investigations/documents

are batched regarding “incident reports”, therefore agreeing to

go back through all of them and organize them for the Court. 

After much thought, as well as further attempts to make order out

of chaos, all ten (10) reports are to be produced to Plaintiff in

their entirety. Further, it is hereby directed that these

reports are for the Attorneys’, certified law students’, and any

and all retained experts’ eyes only; that these reports are not

to be copied for use in any other lawsuit; that any and all

copies made for this litigation are to be returned to Defendants’

counsel or summarily destroyed after this lawsuit is resolved;

AND, that Plaintiff himself is not to receive any copies for

purpose of his review or use at any time for any reason. 

PODs 40-44: All documents relating to Eastern District

legal proceedings against Defendant McKesson involving Salvador

Solis, 1:05-cv-345; Cesar Uribe, 1:05-cv-1285; Baljit Kaur and/or

the Estate of Khem Singh, 1:05-cv-276; and, Daryl Lyons, 1:00-cv5169.

Ruling: Any and all internal affairs investigations and/or

any other complaints, letters, memoranda, directives, etc.,

regarding the above-named prisoners should be included in the ten

(10) cases identified and ordered produced as set forth above

regarding POD 20.

Plaintiff’s request for production of the entire

legal files for these other unrelated plaintiffs, arguably in the

care, control and custody of the Attorney General’s Office, is

DENIED. The court files, to the extent they are still available

4

Case 1:07-cv-00032-AWI -SMS Document 76 Filed 03/15/10 Page 4 of 6
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

online or in hard copy, are accessible to Plaintiff by

appropriate request. It is overly burdensome to require

Defendants’ counsel in this case to access the A.G.’s files,

review each and every one of them, determine what is privileged

and/or covered by work product protection, redact such contents,

determine thereafter what is and is not relevant to the herein

matter (i.e., withhold medical information or other privileged

data regarding the particular plaintiffs in these various other

actions), then copy and produce pertinent parts of any or all of

those files. 

CONCLUSION:

The Court will return the box of documents to Ms. Angus that

she sent to the Court for in camera review via, and with the

assistance of, the local A.G.’s office. Deputy Attorney General

Michelle Angus is directed to produce the documents to

Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days from the date of

service of this Order. 

To reiterate: Plaintiff himself is not to receive any

copies of any documents ordered produced herein either for review

or possession at any time.

Finally, during the telephonic status conference on February

8, 2010 (Doc. 73 ~ see underlined text), the Court, in effect,

stayed the present scheduling conference order of October 27,

2009 (Doc. 64), including the upcoming settlement conference date

of March 18, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. before Judge Snyder; the pretrial

conference date of July 30, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. before Judge Ishii;

and, the jury trial date of September 8, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. before

Judge Ishii. The parties are directed to meet and confer and

5

Case 1:07-cv-00032-AWI -SMS Document 76 Filed 03/15/10 Page 5 of 6
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

provide a written amended stipulated case schedule. The Court

suggests a trial date of November 2, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. before

Judge Ishii, and a pre-trial conference date of September 24,

2010 at 8:30 a.m. before Judge Ishii. The parties can work

backwards from those dates to reach other deadline dates. If

November 2, 2010 is not an acceptable trial date, the parties are

directed to telephone Judicial Assistant Frances Robles at (559)

499-5690 -OR- Courtroom Deputy Harriet Herman at (559) 499-5692

to arrange a telephonic conference with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 1:07-cv-00032-AWI -SMS Document 76 Filed 03/15/10 Page 6 of 6