Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00531/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00531-10/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TAN LAM, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF LOS BANOS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-531-MCE-KJN 

ORDER 

 On May 10, 2016, the court conducted an informal telephonic discovery conference in this 

matter. Attorney Melissa Nold appeared on behalf of plaintiffs, attorney Philip Downs appeared 

on behalf of defendants, and attorney Alyson Berg appeared on behalf of non-party Veterans 

Administration (“VA”). 

 The conference primarily concerned plaintiffs’ ability to depose several VA medical 

providers pursuant to federal subpoenas issued in accordance with the court’s April 26, 2016 

order. The VA objected to those depositions based on plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the VA’s 

Touhy regulations. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 14.800-14.810. Those regulations require, inter alia, that a 

“request or demand for testimony or production of documents shall set forth in, or be 

accompanied by, an affidavit, or if that is not feasible, in, or accompanied by, a written statement 

by the party seeking the testimony or records or by the party’s attorney, a summary of the nature 

Case 2:15-cv-00531-MCE-KJN Document 48 Filed 05/11/16 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

and relevance of the testimony or records sought in the legal proceedings containing sufficient 

information for the responsible VA official to determine whether VA personnel should be 

allowed to testify or records should be produced.” 38 C.F.R. § 14.805. Plaintiffs counter that the 

court has already authorized the depositions by court order and that plaintiffs are therefore not 

required to comply with the Touhy regulations, citing Exxon Shipping Co. v. United States Dep’t 

of Interior, 34 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1994). 

 In Exxon Shipping, the Ninth Circuit held that the Touhy regulations, promulgated under 5 

U.S.C. § 301, do not authorize federal agencies to refuse to comply with proper discovery 

requests, including federal subpoenas to testify and/or produce records, reasoning that: 

Section 301 does not create an independent privilege to withhold 

government information or shield federal employees from valid 

subpoenas. Rather, district courts should apply the federal rules of 

discovery when deciding on discovery requests made against 

government agencies, whether or not the United States is a party to 

the underlying action. Under the balancing test authorized by the 

rules, courts can ensure that the unique interests of the government 

are adequately considered. 

Exxon Shipping, 34 F.3d at 780. Thus, plaintiffs are correct insofar as they contend that the VA 

does not have absolute discretion to prevent VA employees from testifying pursuant to the Touhy

regulations, and the propriety of taking the depositions is ultimately an issue for the court to 

decide, if the parties are unable to reach an agreement. Nevertheless, the court does not read 

Exxon Shipping to suggest that plaintiffs are entirely excused from following the procedural rules 

outlined in the VA’s Touhy regulations to request the depositions of VA employees. Moreover, 

although the court had previously authorized the issuance of subpoenas for depositions of the VA 

medical providers at issue here, the VA was not represented at those court proceedings, and the 

court has not yet considered the unique interests of the VA with respect to the requested 

depositions. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs’ request to compel the VA to produce the current and/or former VA medical 

providers for deposition pursuant to the subpoenas is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

Case 2:15-cv-00531-MCE-KJN Document 48 Filed 05/11/16 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

2. Plaintiffs shall promptly comply with their obligations under the Touhy regulations 

and further meet and confer with counsel for the VA in an attempt to reach agreement 

regarding the number of medical providers to be deposed and the scope of such 

depositions. 

3. If the parties and the VA are unable to informally resolve their dispute, they may 

request another discovery conference with the court. At any such conference, the 

court will want to review the information plaintiffs submitted to the VA to support 

their request for the depositions, as well as the VA’s reasons for not permitting the 

requested discovery. 

4. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on attorney for non-party VA, 

Alyson Berg, via e-mail at: alyson.berg@usdoj.gov. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 11, 2016 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00531-MCE-KJN Document 48 Filed 05/11/16 Page 3 of 3