Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04635/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04635-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

Order (No: 4:13-cv-04635-CW (LB)) 

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 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

EDWIN J. HUTCHINSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY 

AUTHORITY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 4:13-cv-04635-CW (LB) 

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 

DISPUTES AND DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

PROCEDURES 

[Re: ECF Nos. 52, 68, 70, 83, 84] 

INTRODUCTION 

 Edwin Hutchinson, who is an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, alleges that he has 

“industrial lung injury” as a result of being exposed to asbestos while he was employed by the 

California Prison Industry Authority (“CALPIA”). (Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 39.)1

The district judge found two claims that are cognizable: (1) an Eighth Amendment claim against 

Andrew Deems, the CEO of Health Care Services at San Quentin for creating a policy, procedure 

or practice that prevented the testing and treatment of inmates for symptoms from exposure to 

asbestos and lead, and (2) an Eighth Amendment claim against five CALPIA employees (Ron 

Glass, Gary Loredo, Philip Earley, Luu Rogers, and Brad Smith) for concealing from Mr. 

Hutchinson and from Dr. Cranshaw (Mr. Hutchinson’s doctor at San Quentin) the fact that Mr. 

 

1

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents. 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 86 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 5
2 

ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB)) 

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 

Northern District of California 

Hutchinson had been exposed to asbestos or lead, thereby preventing him from receiving a 

diagnosis and treatment for industrial lung disease, aggravating the injury, and inducing him to 

continue to work under hazardous conditions. (3/9/15 Order, ECF No. 41.) The district court 

referred all discovery disputes to the undersigned for resolution. (Order of Reference, ECF No. 

71.) Mr. Smith moved to compel a meet-and-confer (ECF No. 52), to quash a subpoena for his 

medical records as overbroad (ECF No. 68), to stay his deposition (ECF No. 70), and to obtain a 

copy of his deposition transcript (ECF No. 84). The court orders the discovery processes set forth 

below. 

ANALYSIS 

I. MEET-AND-CONFER 

On April 7, 2015, Mr. Hutchinson filed a motion to compel the individual defendants to 

respond to his discovery requests. (Motion, ECF No. 44.) The Attorney General of California then 

represented the defendants. On April 8, Mr. Hutchinson and the Deputy Attorney General 

stipulated that he would withdraw his motion to compel. (Id.) Mr. Hutchinson explains that they 

did so because the Attorney General was in the process of withdrawing from the case and this 

process would allow him to confer with new counsel about his disputes. He then tried to confer 

with the defendants about discovery and the disputes raised in his motion to compel. (Motion, 

ECF No. 53 at 2.) After they apparently told him to send them a written letter, he filed a motion to 

compel either an in-person conference or a telephonic conference. (Id. at 3.) In his motion, he also 

cites the disclosures required by Rule 26(a). (Id.) His letter to defense counsel cites Rule 26(f) 

explicitly. (ECF No. 67.) Counsel for five defendants responded that the motion “should be denied 

because no legal basis for his motion exists. Nevertheless, defense counsel remain willing to 

confer with Plaintiff, and to that end, invite him to write a letter specifying whatever questions or 

concerns he might have.” (Opposition, ECF No. 65 at 1.) Counsel for a sixth defendant responded 

similarly. (Opposition, ECF No. 66.) 

At the hearing, counsel pointed out that the case is exempt from Rule 26’s initial disclosure 

requirements because Mr. Hutchinson is in custody and is representing himself. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). But as Mr. Hutchinson said at the hearing, he is representing himself, he cited 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 86 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 5
3 

ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB)) 

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 

Northern District of California 

the rules the best he could, and he did not know what else to do to obtain a response. He also 

pointed out that he was able to confer with former defense counsel (the Deputy Attorney General) 

via telephonic conference at San Quentin. He also said that he and the Deputy had contemplated a 

meet-and-confer process to address the discovery disputes before he raised them via a motion to 

compel. 

Given Mr. Hutchinson’s representation that he wants to minimize disputes (a representation 

demonstrated by the care that he has brought to his filings and his willingness to comprise on 

medical evidence, see below), the court agrees that the standard processes for resolving discovery 

disputes should apply here. The parties must comply with all applicable requirements in the 

court’s standing order (attached), including all procedures regarding resolution of discovery 

disputes. In this case, the court presumes that Mr. Hutchison does not have access to email (a 

normal first step in a meet-and-confer) and thus orders that the parties must meet and confer by 

telephone (a process that can be arranged by the litigation coordinator). If that process does not 

resolve the dispute, the parties must submit a joint letter brief to the court. Because Mr. Hutchison 

is in custody, the court modifies its process slightly. The moving party will file (and send to the 

opposing party) a three-page letter brief. Within five business days after receipt, the opposing 

party will file (and send to the moving party) a three-page opposition. Within five business days 

after receipt, the moving party may file a two-page reply. The letter brief must be filed under the 

Civil Events category of “Motions and Related Filings > Motions – General > Discovery Letter 

Brief.” After reviewing the joint letter brief, the court will evaluate whether future proceedings are 

necessary, including any further briefing or argument. 

The court observes that Mr. Hutchinson’s motion to compel at ECF No. 44 likely gives the 

defendants insight into what the dispute landscape is. If there are responses that ought to be 

provided, the defendants must provide them because Mr. Hutchinson will need to respond to their 

planned summary-judgment motion. 

II. MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA 

Mr. Hutchinson moved to quash or modify the subpoena for his medical records on the ground 

that ̶ while medical records about his lungs are relevant ̶ his general medical records all the way 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 86 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB)) 

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 

Northern District of California 

back to 1999 are not. (Motion, ECF No. 68.) He also asked for a protective order. (Id.) The 

defendants responded on the ground that Mr. Hutchinson put his medical condition at issue, but 

they did not address the argument that their request included information that was not relevant. 

(Opposition, ECF No. 75.) At the hearing, Mr. Hutchinson and the defendants agreed that the 

defendants’ subpoena would be limited to medical records from 2007 (five years before he filed 

his administrative appeals) and after. The defendants also agreed to prepare the standard protective 

order. 

III. MOTION FOR COPY OF DEPOSITION 

Mr. Hutchinson asked for a copy of his deposition transcript. (Motion, ECF No. 84.) He 

explained at the hearing that he wants to review it so that he can make any corrections. The 

defendants oppose providing a copy at state cost. The court sees no authority allowing it to compel 

defendants to do so. See Boston v. Garcia, No. 2:10-cv-1782-KJM, 2013 WL 11165062, at *2 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013). The rule generally provides that a party must obtain a copy from the 

court reporter, who must provide it when paid reasonable charges. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). The 

court itself cannot use public funds to provide a transcript. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 201, 111 

(9th Cir. 1989). 

As a compromise, Ms. Ho agreed to provide Mr. Hutchinson a copy of the condensed version 

of the transcript. The court appreciates that Mr. Hutchinson wanted an official copy to review it 

for corrections, but this is the best that the court can do. 

IV. MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET ITEMS 

Mr. Hutchinson wants to file seven exhibits. (ECF No. 83.) He explained that he did this to get 

defendants copies that they asked for, and he said that he also sent them copies. This satisfies any 

obligation that Mr. Hutchinson had to provide the documents. 

Mr. Hutchinson filed a third motion for appointment of counsel. (Motion, ECF No. 72.) The 

court explained at the hearing that the district judge would address this motion. 

Mr. Hutchinson moved to continue his deposition. (Motion, ECF No. 70.) Because he was 

deposed, the court denies the motion as moot. 

Mr. Hutchinson asked for judicial notice of his medical records. (Motion, ECF No. 64.) The 

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 86 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

OR

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 

cou

as p

to m

his

pro

den

RDER (No. 4:

urt explained

part of his op

The court g

modify the s

s motion for 

ovision of a c

nies as moot

This dispos

IT IS SO O

Dated: July

10-cv-04641-

d that this iss

pposition to 

grants Mr. H

subpoena for

an original c

copy of the c

t the motion 

ses of ECF N

ORDERED.

y 23, 2015 

-PJH (LB)) 

sue is for the

the motion 

Hutchinson’s 

r medical rec

copy of his d

condensed v

to continue 

Nos. 52, 68, 

.

e district cou

for summary

CONCL

motion to co

cords, and m

deposition tr

version as so

the depositio

70, 83, and 8

_____

LAUR

Unite

urt and can b

y judgment. 

LUSION 

ompel a pro

motion for a p

ranscript but 

on as defens

on. 

84. 

__________

REL BEELE

ed States Ma

be addressed

cess for disc

protective or

orders the c

se counsel re

___________

ER 

agistrate Judg

d by submitti

covery dispu

rder. The cou

compromise 

eceives it. Th

__________

ge 

5

ing evidence

utes, motion 

urt denies 

of the 

he court 

_____ 

5

e

Case 4:13-cv-04635-CW Document 86 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 5