Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00219/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00219-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
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

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

(DPSAGOK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Michael Angelo MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

James E. TILTON, Acting Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and Robert L. Ayers Jr., Acting

Warden of San Quentin State Prison,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06 219 JF RS

Case Number C 06 926 JF RS

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

[Docket No. 169]

The present action involves a challenge to California’s lethal-injection protocol for

carrying out sentences of death, which is known as San Quentin Operational Procedure No. 770,

or “OP 770.” The district judge presiding over this matter has scheduled an evidentiary hearing

in this action for the last week of September 2006. In anticipation of the evidentiary hearing,

Plaintiff filed his Second Motion to Compel Discovery. Defendants and nonparty witnesses the

Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and the California Office of the

Inspector General oppose the Motion. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Motion to

Shorten Time (as well as his Motion to File Oversized Brief) that he filed in connection with his

Second Motion to Compel. The Court heard oral argument from counsel regarding the Second

Motion to Compel on September 12, 2006.

*E-FILED 9/13/06*

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 209 Filed 09/13/06 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

1

This is the Court’s Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (Doc. No. 151.)

2

This is the Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of May 2,

2006, Order. (Doc. No. 158.)

3

Witness No. 7 has been deposed. Witness No. 9 is the designation reserved for the team leaderin-training. As Defendants have not designated anyone for this position, this deposition cannot be taken

at this time.

2

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

(DPSAGOK)

I

The consideration of this Motion generates a distinct sense of déja vu: in two prior

Orders, issued on May 21

 and June 9, 2006,2 the Court addressed and resolved many of the issues

now raised by the parties; moreover, these prior Orders necessarily provide background to the

present Order. In particular, the Court ordered Defendants to produce the documents that

Plaintiff requested prior to the issuance of the two Orders and to answer Plaintiff’s

interrogatories, subject to certain limitations, and the Court ordered that Steven W. Ornoski, a

former warden at San Quentin State Prison, answer Plaintiff’s deposition questions. There is no

basis for relitigating these issues. That being said, the Court will not permit Plaintiff to expand

the scope of discovery at this late date. Defendants, the Office of the Governor, and the Office

of the Inspector General are required to respond to discovery as set forth below. The Court

knows of no reason why this discovery cannot be completed in accordance with the schedule for

the evidentiary hearing. The parties are advised to resolve any further disputes through the meetand-confer process.

II

As previously ordered, Defendants must produce all of the documents requested and must

answer all the interrogatories posed that were discussed in the Court’s prior Orders, subject only

to the limitations delineated in those prior Orders. A failure to produce such documents or to

answer such interrogatories may be punished as a contempt.

Plaintiff continues to seek to depose current and former members of the execution team,

including Witnesses Nos. 6 and 8.3

 The execution team members are at the center of this

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 209 Filed 09/13/06 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

4

Such statements are not privileged, as indicated below.

5

The names would be Protected Information covered by the Protective Order that was entered by

the district judge and accordingly may be disclosed to Plaintiff’s counsel.

3

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

(DPSAGOK)

litigation. Accordingly, and for the same reasons that Defendants previously were required to

produce Witness No. 4 (and other execution team members) for deposition, they must produce

Witnesses Nos. 6 and 8. For any of these witnesses who are no longer in Defendants’ employ

(such as Witness No. 6, who is retired) and whom Defendants cannot produce, Defendants must

provide any information that will enable Plaintiff to issue subpoenas to such witnesses. In

addition, Mr. Ornoski must answer all questions regarding statements made by any participants

at and in connection with the meeting on February 28, 2006, that included persons from the

Office of the Governor.4

 Finally, as discussed at oral argument, Defendants must produce

Denise Dull.

Plaintiff made his Third Set of Document Requests after the Court issued its prior Orders

on discovery. The Court therefore will address below these Requests in detail.

Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 26 through 34, 48, and 51 are specific

iterations of earlier document requests. Accordingly, to the extent that they have not done so

already, Defendants must produce the documents requested that are within their control.

Requests Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10 are for pay sheets for execution team members. Plaintiff

seeks these records because they contain information about the training of execution team

members. These sheets appear to be too attenuated to any relevant information and their

production would be unduly burdensome—particularly at this late date—for Defendants;

moreover, they would be duplicative of the documents requested in Requests Nos. 11 through

14, which are discussed below. Defendants need not produce these documents.

Defendants have produced documents in response to Requests Nos. 11, 12, 13, and 14,

which seek training logs that were covered by document requests previously addressed by the

Court. However, Defendants have redacted the names on the training logs without replacing the

names with witness numbers, thereby rendering the logs nearly meaningless. Defendants must

produce either the documents without redactions5

 or the documents with the correct witness

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 209 Filed 09/13/06 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

6

Defendants report that the “changes to the amount and delivery of the drugs used” in the revised

protocol actually were drafted by the now former execution team leader, a prison guard designated

Witness No. 1, “at the direction of Warden Ornoski with some limited input from a staff physician as to

the feasibility of a proposed continuous infusion.” (See Doc. No. 194 at 3.)

4

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

(DPSAGOK)

numbers in place of the names.

Requests Nos. 49 and 50 seek documents regarding deaths that may have occurred due to

allegedly inadequate medical care at San Quentin. These requests are overbroad and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Defendants

need not produce the requested documents.

III

At the outset, Plaintiff asked Defendants’ counsel to produce documents in the custody of

the Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Defendants’ counsel initially agreed to produce

the documents; weeks later, Defendants’ counsel declined to produce them on the claim that the

documents were in the possession of a nonclient that is a nonparty to this action (i.e, the

Governor’s Office). Plaintiff then subpoenaed the documents directly from counsel for the

Governor’s Office. In Requests Nos. 2 through 7, Plaintiff apparently seeks fewer than 200

pages of documents, which relate to a single meeting in which persons from the Governor’s

Office of Legal Affairs participated in devising the most recently revised version of California’s

lethal-injection protocol.6

Many of the objections by the Governor’s Office to Plaintiff’s document requests are by

means of general, boilerplate assertions of privilege. However, to the extent that the Governor’s

Office relies on them, such assertions are “insufficient to assert a privilege.” Burlington N. &

Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, for

the same reasons provided in the Court’s May 2 Order, the deliberative-process privilege is

inapplicable to these document requests and the need for accurate fact-finding in this case

outweighs the desire of the Governor’s Office’s to keep the documents at issue secret.

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 209 Filed 09/13/06 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

7

The contentions advanced by Defendants and by the Governor’s Office in this regard are

disingenuous: they cannot have it both ways by being a nonparty whose communications with a party are

protected by the attorney-client privilege. As Defendants’ counsel has stated, counsel for the Governor’s

Office represents “an independent state agency” and is not counsel for Defendants.

5

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

(DPSAGOK)

As a general matter, the Governor’s Office is correct that notes by counsel at the Office

of Legal Affairs may be protected as attorney work product. But this only applies to actual

attorney work product that was prepared in an attorney’s role as counsel for the Governor’s

Office, not to notes taken or prepared in the development of the lethal-injection protocol. 

Additionally, the Governor’s Office cannot claim privilege for communications with, or

documents created by, Defendants, Defendants’ counsel, or other persons who are neither part of

the Office of the Governor nor counsel for the Office of the Governor. This is so because

counsel for Defendants and for the Governor’s Office have stated that the Governor’s Office is

not a client of Defendants’ counsel and not a party to the present action. That, along with

Defendants’ shift in position on that point, defeats any such claim of privilege and results in its

waiver.7

 See Evans v. City of Chicago, 231 F.R.D. 302 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (no privilege or

protection in factually similar case). The Governor’s Office must produce the documents

Plaintiff requests.

IV

Plaintiff initially sought vast numbers of documents from the California Office of the

Inspector General regarding both deaths and medical care at San Quentin. Such requests were

overbroad and unduly burdensome (although understandable in light of Defendants’

nondisclosure of the names of the execution team members). However, Plaintiff has narrowed

the scope of these requests significantly: he now seeks only documents regarding any

investigations of conduct by execution team members. If any such documents exist, they

presumably are few in number and plainly discoverable.

Like the Governor’s Office, many of the Inspector General’s objections to Plaintiff’s

document requests are by means of general, boilerplate assertions of privilege. However, as

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 209 Filed 09/13/06 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

8

The Inspector General raises the prospect of a protective order governing any documents he

produces. The Protective Order already entered in this action is hereby incorporated.

6

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

(DPSAGOK)

noted, to the extent that the Inspector General relies on them, such assertions are “insufficient to

assert a privilege.” Id. Moreover, for the same reasons indicated in the Court’s May 2 Order,

the deliberative-process privilege is inapplicable to these document requests and the need for

accurate fact-finding in this case outweighs the Inspector General’s desire to keep the documents

at issue secret; similarly, neither the official-information privilege nor the self-critical-analysis

privilege applies. Finally, the Inspector General’s privacy-based objections, though well-taken,

may be resolved through inmate number designations and the redaction of identifying

information and through a protective order.8

In short, the Inspector General must produce the documents Plaintiff requests to the

extent that such documents relate to any investigations of execution team members (whose

names shall be provided by Defendants as discussed at oral argument). However, the Inspector

General may redact identifying information of execution team members and replace them with

witness numbers; similarly, the Inspector General may redact the identifying information of

inmates and replace them with inmate numbers.

V

Accordingly, and good cause therefor appearing, Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel is

granted in part as indicated herein. In particular, not later than September 22:

(1) Defendants shall produce for deposition Denise Dull and Witnesses Nos. 6 and 8—or,

for any of these witnesses who are no longer in Defendants’ employ and whom

Defendants cannot produce, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff’s investigator all

records concerning such witnesses’ residences, locations where they may be

receiving retirement benefits, email addresses, any information indicating their

whereabouts for the past year, and any information that will enable Plaintiff to issue

subpoenas to such witnesses;

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 209 Filed 09/13/06 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

7

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

(DPSAGOK)

(2) Defendants shall produce for further deposition Steven W. Ornoski, who shall answer

all questions regarding statements made by any participants at and in connection with

the meeting on February 28, 2006, that included persons from the Office of the

Governor;

(3) Defendants shall provide Plaintiff’s investigator with the names of all current and

former execution team members and shall provide Plaintiff’s counsel corresponding

witness numbers;

(4) Defendants shall identify by witness number current and former execution team

members and shall describe their roles in previous executions;

(5) Defendants shall identify by witness number the person who wrote the handwritten

logs for the Stanley Williams execution;

(6) Defendants shall provide witness numbers on all redacted documents where witness

names have been removed;

(7) Defendants shall provide all documents pertaining to revisions of OP 770, including

documents prepared or generated in connection with the meeting with the Office of

the Governor on February 28, 2006;

(8) Defendants shall disclose all communications regarding executions or lethal injection

to or from Drs. Rosko, Singler, and Etkins;

(9) Defendants shall disclose the identities and roles of every person who contributed to

revising OP 770;

(10) Defendants shall disclose all investigations of conduct by current and former

execution team members;

(11) The Office of the Governor shall produce all documents concerning executions,

revisions of OP 770, or meetings concerning lethal injection, including all documents

provided by or to Defendants and Defendants’ counsel; and

(12) The California Office of the Inspector General shall provide documents that relate to

any investigations of execution team members (whose names shall be provided by

Defendants), although identifying information of execution team members may be

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 209 Filed 09/13/06 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

8

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

(DPSAGOK)

redacted and replaced with witness numbers and identifying information of inmates

may be redacted and replaced with inmate numbers in conformity with the Protective

Order entered in this action.

In all other respects, Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel is denied.

 It is so ordered.

DATED: September 12, 2006 __________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 209 Filed 09/13/06 Page 8 of 8