Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-0328 JSW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief by Plaintiffs regarding the Weldon

Amendment. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 3163. The Weldon Amendment prohibits the

distribution of federal funds to any federal agency, federal program, state or local government that "subjects

any institutional or health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not

provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions." Id. "Health care entity" includes "an

individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a

health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility,

organization or plan." Id. 

Plaintiffs argue that the Weldon Amendment may subject states to the loss of federal funding if they

discriminate against an entity or an individual who refuses to provide abortion related services because it

does not clearly define "discrimination" and does not state whether the restrictions apply to medically

required abortions in emergency situations. Plaintiffs bring their claim because California Health and Safety

Code Section 1317 ("Section 1317") requires health facility employees to provide an abortion to any

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 68 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

person who is in danger of loss of life, serious injury or illness. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1317(a)

(Deering 2005). Plaintiffs argue that the Weldon Amendment would prohibit enforcement of Section 1317

by forcing Plaintiffs to allow healthcare providers to deny medically necessary abortions in emergency

situations. As such, Plaintiffs contend that the Weldon Amendment is constitutionally defective because it

fails to include an explicit exception for abortion services that are medically required in emergency

situations. 

The parties are now before the Court regarding Defendants' responses to certain discovery

propounded by Plaintiffs. These discovery requests include the following: 

Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Number 12: 

Would the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

withhold federal funds from the State of California pursuant to the

WELDON AMENDMENT if California or any of its departments,

agencies or agents, disciplines a doctor, pursuant to California Health and

Safety Code Section 1317, for failing or refusing to perform an emergency

abortion that the doctor was qualified and equipped to perform? 

Joint Letter at 1. 

Plaintiffs' Admission Request Number 11: 

If California or any of its departments, agencies or agents, disciplines a

doctor, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 1317, for

failing or refusing to perform an emergency abortion that the doctor was

qualified and equipped to perform, the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES will withhold federal funds from the State of

California pursuant to the Weldon Amendment. 

Joint Letter at 1. 

Defendants responded by stating that they would "enforce the law if they became aware of

a violation." Joint Letter at 2. 

Plaintiffs also requested that Defendants produce all documents regarding the possible

implementation of the Weldon Amendment. Joint Letter at 3. In response, Defendants prepared a

privilege log in which several documents were described as records regarding "potential action to implement

the Weldon Amendment" and records "discussing issues pertaining to implementation of the Weldon

Amendment." Id. 

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 68 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On October 19, 2005, the parties filed a Joint Meet and Confer Letter ("Joint Letter") regarding

these disputes. Elbert Lin signed for Defendants. Timothy M. Muscat signed for Plaintiffs. The parties'

Joint Letter details two distinct issues which are subject to dispute: (1) Defendants' response to Plaintiffs'

Interrogatory Number 12 and Admission Request Number 11; and (2) Defendants' failure to produce

documents regarding the implementation of the Weldon Amendment. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. California's Discovery Requests Regarding Health and Safety Code Section 1317

The first issue before the Court is whether to compel Defendants to provide more responsive

answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Number 12 and Admission Request Number 11. Defendants object to

Plaintiffs' interrogatory and request for admission, arguing that they call for a "legal conclusion on the basis

of hypothetical facts not before the Court." Joint Letter at 2. Defendants contend that Section 1317 has

never been enforced; therefore, such questions are beyond the scope of permissible discovery because they

do not contain facts central to the case and thus cannot seek an application of law to the facts of the case. 

Id. In response, Plaintiffs argue that the questions are proper in that they seek responses which call for an

opinion or contention as to whether, under the circumstances presented in the questions, Defendants would

withhold federal funds. Plaintiffs contend that such an opinion or contention relates to the fact or application

of law to fact and is therefore permissible. Id. 

"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). "Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if

the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. Thus,

the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules is extremely broad. Soto v. Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603,

610 (N.D. Cal. 1995). A relevant matter is "any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to

other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in this case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.

Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947). 

"Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26(b)(1), and the

answers may be used to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c). "An

interrogatory otherwise proper is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 68 Filed 12/01/05 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact." Id. 

However, while the scope of interrogatories may seek responses of opinion or contention, the interrogatory

must seek an application of law to the central facts of the case. It is not sufficient that an interrogatory

seeks pure legal conclusions related not to the facts, but to the law of the case. O'Brien v. International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 443 F.Supp. 1182, 1187 (N.D. Ga. 1977). 

Here, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Number 12 and Admission

Request Number 11 call for legal conclusion on the basis of facts not before the Court. The interrogatory

and request for admission ask Defendants whether Plaintiffs' enforcement of Section 1317 would violate the

Weldon Amendment. While Plaintiffs argue that the questions are admissible because they call for an

"opinion or contention," the questions do not relate to fact or application of the law to fact as required by

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 33(c). Plaintiffs' questions cannot involve facts or the

applications of law to facts because, as Defendants argue, Section 1317 has never been enforced. Absent

any application of law to the central facts of the case, Plaintiffs' questions amount to a request for pure legal

conclusions. 

The Court finds that this case is similar to the O'Brien decision. In O'Brien, the plaintiff union

member alleged that he had been restrained in the exercise of his rights of free speech and assembly. 

O'Brien at 1184. The court held inadmissible an interrogatory that requested the defendant to list why each

alleged violation was not precluded by operation of a provision of the Bill of Rights of Members of Labor

Organizations, 29 U.S.C. § 411(b). Id. at 1187-8. The interrogatory contained no facts of the case, and

therefore the court reasoned that the question sought "pure legal conclusions" which "related not to the fact,

but to the law of the case." Id. at 1187. Here, like in O'Brien, Plaintiffs' questions contain no facts;

instead, they request conclusions based solely on law. As the court in O'Brien indicated, the interrogatory

must seek an application of law to the central facts of the case. It is not sufficient that an interrogatory

seeks pure legal conclusions related not to the facts, but to the law of the case. Id.

In support of its position, Plaintiffs cite O'Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc., 185 F.R.D.

272 (C.D.Cal. 1999). In O'Connor, the plaintiffs alleged they were exposed to radioactive substances as a

result of the defendants' negligence. Id. at 276. The defendants in O'Connor served interrogatories on the

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 68 Filed 12/01/05 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

plaintiffs requesting a full description of each exposure the plaintiffs alleged the defendants caused. The

court allowed the interrogatories because they focused on exposure to toxic substances, a fact that had

occurred in the case. Id. at 281. However, O'Connor is distinguishable from the present case because,

here, Plaintiffs seek an answer to a question that involves no facts of the case. Instead, Plaintiffs' questions

require Defendant to conclude whether Plaintiffs' actions, which have not yet occurred, would trigger a

withholding of federal funds. Such an absence of facts places the interrogatory and request for admission

outside the scope of FRCP 33(c). While FRCP 33(c) allows interrogatories that involve opinions or

contentions, the opinions or contentions must relate to facts or the application of law to facts. Plaintiffs'

questions do not involve facts or the application of law to fact because Section 1317 has never been

enforced. As such, Plaintiffs' questions amount to "pure legal conclusions" in violation of FRCP 33(c). 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for more responsive answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Number 12 and

Admission Request Number 11 is DENIED. 

B. California's Request for Production of Documents Regarding the Implementation of the

Weldon Amendment. 

The second issue before the Court is whether to compel Defendants to disclose the 15 documents

listed in their privilege log. Plaintiffs requested all documents that "include, refer to, describe, or constitute

any statement by or position of Defendant regarding the implementation of the Weldon Amendment." Joint

Letter at 3. In response, Defendants submitted a privilege log listing 15 documents withheld pursuant to

the deliberative process privilege. Id. Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Defendant to produce these 15

documents. 

Plaintiffs argue that the documents will show standing as well as the degree of coercion that

California faces upon implementation of the Weldon Amendment. In response, Defendants object to

Plaintiffs' request, arguing that they have not established a need sufficient to surmount the deliberative

process privilege. Joint Letter at 4. Defendants further argue that since they have not formulated any

plans or taken any action to implement the Weldon Amendment "no such plans are or could be reflected in

the withheld documents." Id. 

The Freedom of Information Act ("Act"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, provides for the disclosure of federal

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 68 Filed 12/01/05 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

government records in order to open the administrative processes to the scrutiny of the press and the

public. Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1, 9 (1974). The Act mandates

broad disclosure of federal government records unless the records may be withheld subject to one of the

enumerated exemptions listed in the statute. United States DOJ v. Julian, 486 US 1, 8 (1988). While

Congress created these exemptions in recognition that legitimate government and private interests may be

harmed by disclosure of certain information, the exemptions are to be narrowly applied. Id. 

One such exemption applies to "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would

not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552

(b)(5). This exemption entitles an agency to withhold from the public "documents which a private party

could not discover in litigation with the agency." NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 148

(1965) citing EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. at 85-86. As such, Section 552(b)(5) includes the attorney-client

privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and the executive "deliberative process" privilege on which

Defendants rely. In order to fall within the deliberative process privilege, the materials in question must be

"predecisional" in nature and must also form part of the agency's "deliberative process." Id. at 151-152. 

A "predecisional" document is one "prepared in order to assist an agency

decisionmaker in arriving at his decision" and may include

"recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and other

subjective documents which reflect the personal opinions of the writer

rather than the policy of the agency." A predecisional document is part of

the "deliberative process," if "the disclosure of [the] materials would

expose an agency's decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage

candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's

ability to perform its functions." 

Maricopa Audobon Society v. United States Forest Service, 108 F. 3d 1089, 1093 (1997) (citations

omitted). 

After conducting an in camera review of the documents in question, the Court finds that they fall

within the deliberative process privilege as set forth in 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (b)(5). The documents are

"predecisonal" in nature and are part of Defendants' "deliberative process." Specifically, the Court finds

that the documents were prepared in order to assist the agency in arriving at its decision and include

subjective material which reflects the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency. 

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 68 Filed 12/01/05 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Thus, disclosure would expose the agency's decisonmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid

discussion within the agency. Therefore, the documents are protected by the deliberative process privilege. 

The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have failed to make the strong showing required to overcome the

deliberative process privilege. Federal courts have held that this privilege "may be overcome by a strong

showing of need on the part of the party seeking discovery." United States v. Rozet, 183 F.R.D. 662,

665 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (citation omitted). However, the Court agrees with Defendants that the documents

are insufficient to support either standing or coercion. The documents neither contain plans to implement

the Weldon Amendment nor do they contain information as to the degree of coercion Plaintiffs may face as

a result of implementation of the Weldon Amendment. Additionally, the documents do not contain past or

current plans regarding the enforcement of the Weldon Amendment. Absent such information regarding

standing or coercion, Plaintiffs' claim must fail. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request for production of documents

regarding the implementation of the Weldon Amendment is DENIED. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs' request to compel further responses to Interrogatory Number 12 and Admission

Request Number 11 is hereby DENIED; and 

2. Plaintiffs' request for production of documents regarding the implementation of the Weldon

Amendment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2005 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 68 Filed 12/01/05 Page 7 of 7