Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05891/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05891-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 25:640 Indian Tribal 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSELIND QUAIR and CHARLOTTE )

BERNA, )

)

)

)

Petitioners, )

)

v. )

)

DENA BEGA, et al., )

)

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:02cv5891 REC DLB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ MOTION

REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES

(Document 174)

On March 29, 2005, the parties filed the instant motion to resolve discovery disputes. 

The motion was heard on April 22, 2005, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck. Laurie L.

Quigley and Kirsten Zumwalt appeared on behalf of Respondents. Robert Rhoan, Patrick

Guillory and Leah Castella appeared on behalf of Petitioners. 

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of the June 1, 2000, disenrollment and banishment of Petitioners

Roselind Quair and Charlotte Berna (“Petitioners”) from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi-Yokut

Tribe (“Tribe”). On February 3, 2003, Petitioners, pursuant to Section 1303 of the Indian Civil

Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., (“ICRA”), filed amended petitions for writ of habeas

corpus. Petitioners allege that because the proceedings which resulted in their disenrollment as

Case 1:02-cv-05891-LJO-DLB Document 191 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 7
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

members of the Tribe and banishment from the Tribe’s Rancheria were in violation of their rights

guaranteed under ICRA, these actions constituted an unlawful detention and restraint of liberty.

On July 26, 2004, the Honorable Robert E. Coyle denied in part and granted in part the

parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Pursuant to the order, the issues remaining in this

action are: (1) whether Petitioners were denied due process; and (2) whether Petitioners were

denied a fair trial.

In August 2004, Petitioners filed a motion to reopen discovery. A hearing was held on

September 24, 2004, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck. Judge Beck deferred ruling on the

motion pending the outcome of a re-hearing held by the Tribe on Petitioners’ disenrollment and

banishment. A re-hearing was held on October 1, 2004, and the Tribe again voted to disenroll

and banish Petitioners. 

On October 29, 2004, Judge Beck held a scheduling conference to consider Petitioners’

request to re-open discovery. On December 22, 2004, Judge Beck issued an Amended

Scheduling Order allowing the re-opening of discovery. 

Pursuant to the Amended Scheduling Order, Petitioners propounded Requests for

Interrogatories, Set No. Four, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. Three. The

instant motion concerns issues raised by Respondents’ responses to this discovery. 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides:

1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence,

description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or

other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of

any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any

matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information

need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the

limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(I), (ii), and (iii).

Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 26(b)(1).

Case 1:02-cv-05891-LJO-DLB Document 191 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 7
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

B. Discovery At Issue

The parties identify eight issues for which they require the Court’s direction. Not all

issues are related to specific interrogatories and/or requests for production of documents. 

Therefore, the Court will address the issues as the parties identified them, rather than numbered

discovery requests.

1. Information Regarding Voting Records of Tribal Members

Petitioners contend that this information is relevant to ensure that there were a significant

number of votes to disenroll and banish Petitioners, that those votes came from eligible

members, and that no eligible member voted more than once. Respondents contend that on

October 1, 2004, the General Council conducted the vote by secret ballot, and they intended to

keep the vote secret. Respondents also point out that Petitioners have been given ample

information to verify the voting process- sign in sheets for the meetings where votes were taken,

minutes of those meetings, and copies of the ballots from the October 1, 2004 re-hearing. 

During the hearing, Respondents indicated that they do not have information regarding

how each member voted. Such information, in any event, is not discoverable. The votes were

taken by secret ballot, and forcing individuals to disclose the nature of their vote would implicate

substantial privacy concerns. As Respondents have indicated that they have produced the

information available to them, Respondents will not be required to provide further information

Insofar as Petitioners wish to ask deponents about how they voted, they may do so. 

However, Petitioners must first tell the deponent that this Court has determined that it is their

right not to disclose such information. After being apprised of this Court’s determination, the

deponent will not be prevented from discussing how they voted, if he or she choose to do so. 

2. Identity of All Tribal Members Who Requested that Petitioners Be Banished and

Disenrolled

Petitioners contend that this information is necessary so that they may confront their

accusers, test the veracity of the motives of the accusers, determine whether accusers were part of

the body that evaluated whether they should be banished and disenrolled, and explore whether

personal animosity, personal interest or bias impacted that individual’s decision and/or the

Case 1:02-cv-05891-LJO-DLB Document 191 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 7
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

decision of other individuals. Respondents argue that it would be unduly burdensome to

interview each member of the Tribe to establish if they requested that the General Council banish

and/or disenroll Petitioners. 

Respondents have provided the General Council meeting minutes. To the extent that

tribal members made a formal request to the Tribal Council, or made a request in a meeting for

which there are minutes, such information is discoverable and should be produced if it is

available to Respondents and has not already been produced. The grounds for the request is also

discoverable. Requests for banishment and/or disenrollment not falling into one of these two

categories is not discoverable.

3. Unredacted Records of Meetings Where Petitioners’ Banishment was Discussed

Petitioners contend that this information is necessary to determine if individuals who

attended and voted at the re-hearing had engaged in any conduct, either at that hearing or in the

earlier proceeding, that evidenced bias, prejudgment, or animosity towards Petitioners. 

Respondents have provided Petitioners with all meeting minutes of General Council

meetings during which Petitioners’ disenrollment and banishment was discussed that are in

Respondents’ custody and control. Respondents redacted the “executive session” of the October

1, 2004, re-hearing because the session related to the deliberation which took place outside the

presence of tribal members. If Petitioners question whether material was properly redacted, they

may resort to in camera review. 

Information beyond this is not relevant and therefore not discoverable. Petitioners’

argument that the unredacted minutes will reveal the “nature and tone” of the meetings and the

general sentiments of the individuals in attendance is unpersuasive.

4. The Identity of All Individuals Who Have Been Disenrolled and Banished Since

2000 

Petitioners’ Interrogatory No. 17 requests this information since 1994, and Request for

Document Nos. 7-9 asks for documents related to this issue. Respondents provided information

for those individuals who were disenrolled and banished prior to 2000, but did not provide

information for individuals banished and disenrolled since 2000.

Case 1:02-cv-05891-LJO-DLB Document 191 Filed 05/03/05 Page 4 of 7
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

Petitioners contend that this information is relevant to determine if any decision makers

were under duress (i.e., if any member who voted for Petitioners was subsequently disenrolled

and banished) and whether the punishment was proportionate to the crime, both issues which

they contend are necessary to determine whether Petitioners’ received due process. Respondents

contend that the names of individuals who have been disenrolled and banished since 2000 are not

relevant, and point out that the membership files of these individuals contain personal

information.

Respondents shall identify the grounds for which tribal members where disenrolled

and/or disenrolled and banished since 2000. The names of these individuals, and any other

personal information appears to be irrelevant.

5. Range of Punishments Available to Respondents 

Petitioners request this information in Interrogatory No. 6. Respondents responded by 

stating that the General Council is empowered to “impose any lawful sanction which it deems

appropriate.”

Petitioners contend that because due process requires that the punishment not be out of

synch with the crime, this information is necessary to their claim. Respondents contend that their

response is the only response that they can provide and no further response is possible. 

Based on the response given, and Respondents’ explanation that the Tribe can impose any

lawful sanction it deems appropriate, the Court finds that Respondents have already answered the

interrogatory and that no further response is necessary. 

6. Tribe’s Five Year Business Plan, Revenue Allocation Plans, and Deposition

Questions Regarding Per Capita Distribution

In Interrogatory No. 13, Petitioners request procedures for the calculation of pro rata

distribution of all Tribal benefits. Respondents stated that “[t]he Tribe provides payments to

qualified members from the revenues of its gaming operation in accordance with IGRA, the

revenue allocation plan, and the Tribe’s operative 5 year business plan.” In response to the

companion document request, Request No. 13, Respondents stated that the documents were

irrelevant. 

Case 1:02-cv-05891-LJO-DLB Document 191 Filed 05/03/05 Page 5 of 7
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

Petitioners contend that if any member of the General Council has any pecuniary interest

in the outcome of Petitioners’ disenrollment and banishment, the integrity of the entire body is

compromised. Respondents argue that the financial information is not relevant and is

proprietary.

At the hearing, the Court agreed with Petitioners that such information is necessary to test

Respondents’ position that the per capita distribution does not increase when the tribal

membership decreases, but explained that it is sensitive to disclosing more financial information

than is absolutely necessary. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to discuss whether

or not the requested documents can be appropriately redacted to address privacy concerns but

still provide sufficient information regarding the formula for the per capita distributions. 

7. Identities of Individuals Who Have Been Recalled from the Tribal Council Since

January 1, 1998, and Circumstances Under Which they were Recalled

and Documents Related Thereto

Petitioners request this information through Interrogatory No. 18 and request relevant

documents through Request for Production No. 14. Respondents refused to provide this

information.

Petitioners contend that this information is relevant because it bears directly on whether

the Tribe was capable of providing Petitioners with due process due to bias. Petitioners explain

that Ms. Berna was involved in efforts to recall Tribal Council members from their position in

1998, and contend that these individuals, and those allied with them, participated in their

banishment and disenrollment. Respondents argue that such information is not relevant, is

outside Respondents’ custody and control, and is private.

The identify of the individuals recalled since January 1, 1998, and when they were

recalled, is relevant and shall be disclosed. The circumstances of the recalls and documents

related to the recalls, however, are not relevant. 

8. Scope of Respondents’ Search

Finally, Petitioners request that this Court define the proper scope of Respondents’ search

for relevant and responsive information. 

Case 1:02-cv-05891-LJO-DLB Document 191 Filed 05/03/05 Page 6 of 7
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

Respondents indicated that they have searched their documents and the Tribal Council

documents. This appears to be an appropriate search and the Court will not order Respondents to

broaden the scope of their search.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05891-LJO-DLB Document 191 Filed 05/03/05 Page 7 of 7