Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02300/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02300-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

FILED 

MAR 2 O 2018 

CLERK US DIS SOUTHERN . . TRICT COURT 

BY \ 117 f 

DISTR1CT OF CALIFORNIA 

· DEPUTY 

9 

10 

11 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

12 MARISSA LOFTIS, et al., 

13 

14 v. 

15 DENISE RAMOS, et al., 

16 

17 

18 

Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB) 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION RE: 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY 

(ECF No. 43) 

19 BACKGROUND 

20 This is a § 1983 action. Plaintiff Marissa Loftis filed a complaint on behalf of herself 

21 and her minor child, Marquise Deangelo Loftis Jr. (collectively "Plaintiffs"). (See ECF 

22 No. 37.) Plaintiff Marissa Loftis's husband and plaintiff Marquise Deangelo Loftis Jr.'s 

23 father is incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. (Id.) Plaintiffs 

24 initially alleged that while visiting their husband/father on April 7, 2016, they were illegally 

25 detained by defendants Ramos and Wilborn for three hours based on their religious beliefs. 

26 (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs alleged that they were separated and that plaintiff Marissa 

27 Loftis was subjected to a strip search in order to regain custody of her son. (Id.) Defendants 

28 

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02300-MMA-MSB Document 45 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 10
1 contend that plaintiff Marissa Loftis was properly detained after she was caught trying to 

2 bring tobacco, a scale, and money orders into the prison. (Id.) 

3 On September 25, 2017, defendants served their discovery responses, including 

4 objections, a privilege log, and a declaration in support of the assertion of privilege, to 

5 plaintiffs initial series of Requests for Production of Documents ("RPDs")1 directed to 

6 both defendants D. Ramos and J. Wilborn. (See ECF No. 43-2.) On November 6, 2017, 

7 defendants served separate responses on behalf of each defendant, D. Ramos and J. 

8 Wilborn, to the second set of RPDs propounded by plaintiff. (See ECF No. 43-5.) 

9 Thereafter, attorney Keith Rutman made his initial appearance on behalf of plaintiff 

10 Marissa Loftis and added plaintiff Marquise Deangelo Loftis, Jr. as a party on November 

11 20, 2017.2 

12 In response to a Joint Motion to Continue Litigation Dates and Deadlines filed on 

13 December 12, 2017, Judge Porter entered an Order Granting Joint Motion to Continue 

14 and/or Extend Relevant Litigation Deadlines and Dates on December 15, 2017. Therein, 

15 the Court vacated the deadlines previously set and issued a revised schedule for the 

16 remaining discovery. She also ordered the parties to file a joint motion addressing any 

17 outstanding discovery disputes no later than January 31, 2018. (ECF No. 36 at 2.) In 

18 accordance with this Order, on January 31, 2018, the parties filed the instant Motion 

19 seeking resolution of a discovery dispute; specifically, defendants' assertion of privilege 

20 in their September 25, 2017 and November 6, 2017 responses to plaintiffs RPDs. (See 

21 ECF No. 43.) 

22 

23 

24 1 It is unclear to the Court when Plaintiffs initially propounded the first set of Requests for 

Production of Documents as it is not noted within the Joint Motion or its corresponding 

26 exhibits. (See ECF No. 43.) 

25 

27 2 On August 7, 2017, Plaintiff Marquise Deangelo Loftis Jr.'s claims were dismissed 

without prejudice because he was an unrepresented minor and no guardian ad !item was 

28 formally appointed by the Court. (See ECF No. 24.) 

2 

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02300-MMA-MSB Document 45 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 10
1 II 

2 II 

3 DISCUSSION 

4 Under Rule 26(b )( 1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is entitled to 

5 seek discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to his or her claims and 

6 proportional to the needs of the case. The December 2015 amendment to Rule 26 

7 reinforced the proportionality factors for defining the scope of discovery and, thus, under 

8 the amended Rule 26, relevancy alone is no longer sufficient to obtain discovery. See Fed. 

9 R. Civ. P. 26(b )(1) advisory committee notes to 2015 amendment. Accordingly, parties 

10 must conduct a cost-benefit analysis weighing the importance of the issue to the outcome 

11 of the case, the amount at stake in the case, the parties' resources, and their relative access 

12 to the information. Id. Thus, only evidence that is "relevant to any party's claim or 

13 defense" is within the scope of permissible discovery. Id.; Medicinova Inc. v. Genzyme 

14 Corp., No. 14-cv-2513-L (KSC), 2017 WL 2829691, at *5 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) ("The 

15 test going forward is whether evidence is 'relevant to any party's claim or defense,' not 

16 whether it is 'reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence."') (quoting In re Bard 

17 IVC Filters Prods. Liability Litig., 317 F .R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016)). 

18 "The party who resists discovery has the burden to show discovery should not be 

19 allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections." 

20 Duran v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 258 F.R.D. 375, 378 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Blankenship v. 

21 Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); Sullivan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 

22 233 F.R.D. 573, 575 (C.D. Cal. 2005)). 

23 A party may also request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 

24 26(b) of the Federal Rules. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). Under Rule 34, a request for the production 

25 of documents is sufficient ifthe documents or things to be produced are described by item 

26 or category with "reasonable particularity." Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(l)(A). "The test for 

27 reasonable particularity is whether the request places a party upon 'reasonable notice of 

28 what is called for and what is not."' Bruggeman v. Blagojevich, 219 F.R.D. 430, 436 (N.D. 

3 

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02300-MMA-MSB Document 45 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 10
1 Ill. 2004); see also Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 649-50 (10th Cir. 2008) 

2 ("[A] discovery request should be sufficiently definite and limited in scope that it can be 

3 said 'to apprise a person of ordinary intelligence what documents are required and [to 

4 enable] the court ... to ascertain whether the requested documents have been produced."'). 

5 "For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related 

6 activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the 

7 reasons." Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(B). Rule 34 requires that objections to a request for the 

8 production of documents be timely and the grounds be stated with specificity. See 

9 Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2). 

10 "If the responding party objects to the requested form-or if no form was specified 

11 in the request-the party must state the form or forms it intends to use." Fed.R.Civ.P. 

12 34(b)(2)(D). Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the Court, a party must produce 

13 documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them 

14 to correspond to the categories in the request. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). 

15 1. Official Information Privilege Invocation 

16 In response to all of plaintiffs' requests, defendants provided the following 

1 7 objection: 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

"This request seeks privileged information or materials that confidential and 

protected by the official information privilege. 5 U.S.C. § 552; Kerr v. US. Dist. 

Court, 511 F.2d 192, 198-99 (9th Cir. 1975); Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 

F.R.D. 227, 229-30 (S.D. Cal. 1993); Jackson v. County of Sacramento, 175 F.R.D. 

653 (E.D. Cal. 1997). These files are kept at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 

Facility. Defendants produce [sic] the accompanying declaration of Lieutenant F. 

Hernandez, Investigative Services Unit, in support of these objections. Without 

waiving any objection, Defendants produce the documents attached hereto:"3 

25 3 Without waiving any objection, Defendants produced the following documents: (1) a 

Notice of Request for Search (CDC 888) dated April 17, 2016; (2) five (5) photos of 26 contraband confiscated from Marissa Loftis on April 17, 2016; (3) a Notice of Visitor 

27 Exclusion; (4) a visitor profile; (5) a letter dated April 19, 2016, from Marissa Loftis to 

Warden Paramo; (6) a letter dated May 20, 2016, from Warden Paramo to Marissa Loftis; 28 (7) CDCR 22 dated May 25, 2016, from inmate Loftis, AF9076; (8) a letter dated 

4 

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02300-MMA-MSB Document 45 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 10
1 

2 (See ECF Nos. 43-2 at 2-5; 43-5 at 4, 9-13; 43-6 at 4-7.) 

3 2. Official Information Privilege 

4 In the Joint Motion, defendants claim plaintiffs' requests seek official information 

5 that is kept confidential and considered privileged information, and is therefore not subject 

6 to discovery. (ECF No. 43 at 9-10.) Defendants contend that disclosure of documents 

7 containing sensitive investigatory information of illegal activity within the prison could 

8 jeopardize official investigations and place other inmates and correctional staff at risk of 

9 retaliation if informants were to be discovered. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiffs assert that the requests 

10 are relevant to the allegations in the Complaint, the documents cannot be acquired by 

11 alternative means, and any concern of retaliation is speculative at this point. (Id.) Plaintiffs 

12 also assert that Defendants' concern regarding any impediment to future investigations 

13 and/or retaliation of other inmates that the disclosures may bring can be addressed through 

14 a protective order. (Id.) 

15 Federal common law recognizes a "qualified privilege for official information." 

16 Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Kerr v. U.S. 

17 Dist. Ct. , 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 392, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 

18 725 (1976)). The party asserting the privilege has the burden of proving the privilege. 

19 Kelly v. City a/San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 662 (N.D. Cal. 1987); see also Hamption v. City 

20 of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227, 231 (S.D. Cal. 1993) ("Through this opinion, this court is 

21 

22 

23 September 23, 2016, from Marissa Loftis to Warden Paramo; (9) a letter dated October 4, 

2016, from warden Paramo to Marissa Lofits; (10) an undated letter from Marissa Loftis 24 to director Scott Kernan title "In re DELIBERATE FLOUTING OF 

25 REGULATIONS/VISITING APPEAL;" (11) a letter dated November 16, 2016, from 

Kathleen Allison, director of adult institutions to Marissa Loftis; (12) an undated letter 26 from Marissa Loftis to Warden Paramo titled "Amended Appeal;" (13) an undated letter 

27 from Marissa Loftis to Warden Paramo titled "Appeal regarding 'Exclusion Order;'" (14) 

an inmate appeal RJD-A-16-2206, filed by inmate Loftis, AF9076; and (15) an inmate 28 appeal RJD-A-16-2713, filed by inmate Loftis, AF9076. 

5 

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02300-MMA-MSB Document 45 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 10
1 hereby joining the Northern District's and Central District's procedures outlined in Kelly 

2 v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987) and Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 

3 292 (C.D. Cal. 1992) for invoking the official information privilege"); Stewart v. City of 

4 San Diego, 2010 WL 4909630, at * 1 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (applying Kelly). Some factors that 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

courts may consider when conducting the case-by-case balancing analysis include: 

"(1) [t]he extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by 

discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) [t]he impact upon 

persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed; (3) [t]he 

degree to which government self-evaluation and consequent program improvement 

will be chilled by disclosure; ( 4) [ w ]hether the information sought is factual data or 

evaluative summary; (5) [w]hether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or 

potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to 

follow from the incident in question; (6) [w]hether the police investigation has been 

completed; (7) [w]hether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen 

or may arise from the investigation; (8) [ w ]hether the plaintiffs suit is non-frivolous 

and brought in good faith; (9) [w]hether the information sought is available through 

other discovery or from other sources; and (10) [t]he importance of the information 

sought to the plaintiffs case." Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 663. 

In making this determination, courts must conduct "a situation specific analysis of 

the factors made relevant by the request in issue and the objection to it." Kelly, 114 F.R.D. 

at 663. In civil rights cases against police departments, the balancing test should be 

"moderately pre-weighed in favor of disclosure." Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F .R.D. 603, 

613 (N.D. Cal.1995) (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661). 

To invoke the official information privilege, defendants must make a substantial 

21 threshold showing. See Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Hampton, 147 F.R.D. at 231; and Dowell 

22 

v. Griffin, 275 F.R.D. 613, 616 (S.D. Cal. 2011). To meet this threshold requirement, 

23 defendants "must submit a declaration or affidavit from a responsible official with personal 

24 knowledge of the matters to be attested to in the affidavit." Dowell, 275 F .R.D. at 616. 

25 The affidavit must include: (1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected the 

26 material in issue and has maintained its confidentiality; (2) a statement that the official has 

27 personally reviewed the material in question; (3) a specific identification of the 

28 

6 

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02300-MMA-MSB Document 45 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 10
1 governmental or privacy interests that would be threatened by disclosure of the material to 

2 plaintiff and/or his lawyer; ( 4) a description of how disclosure subject to a carefully crafted 

3 protective order would create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or 

4 privacy interests; and (5) a projection of how much harm would be done to the threatened 

5 interests if disclosure were made. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (internal quotation marks 

6 omitted). 

7 3. Analysis 

8 In the Order issued December 15, 2017, this Court directed the parties to address 

9 "any outstanding discovery disputes" in a joint motion, filed no later than January 31, 2018. 

10 [Doc. No. 36, p. 2]. The responsive Joint Motion filed by the parties, however, fails to 

11 provide this Court with sufficient information with which to make a determination. 

12 Specifically, incomplete information is provided regarding exactly what has already 

13 been produced by the defendants in response to plaintiffs' requests. While some 

14 documents produced are identified,4 other discovery responses attached as exhibits to the 

15 Joint Motion refer to the production of documents, "subject" to objections made, but fail 

16 to identify any of these documents, whether they were produced, whether or not these 

17 productions were responsive and adequate, and if not, why. [See, e.g. Doc. No. 43-5, pp. 

18 3-10; 43-6, pp. 2-3, 6.] Additionally, the disputed document requests are set forth in the 

19 Joint Motion, along with the defendants' responses, but no detailed explanations are 

20 provided by plaintiffs to each request to support their contention that the responses are 

21 inadequate and why, other than their discussion regarding the "general scope of 

22 discoverable materials." [Doc. No. 43, pp. 5-8]. The only argument set forth by plaintiffs 

23 to support their demand for further production of documents is the sweeping assertion that: 

24 "[p ]laintiff s requests are relevant to the allegations in the lawsuit. They are simply witness 

25 statements and photographs, nothing more." [Doc. No. 43, p. 1 O]. Plaintiffs go on to state, 

26 

27 

28 4 See footnote 3, supra. 

7 

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02300-MMA-MSB Document 45 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 10
1 again without the benefit of any analysis, that "[i]t is virtually impossible or impractical to 

2 acquire the information through (sic) alternative means, such as investigation or 

3 interviews." Id. Lastly, plaintiffs dismiss the defendants' concerns that the disclosure of 

4 the information in question could jeopardize official investigations and place other inmates 

5 and correctional staff in harms' way as "speculative" and something that can be addressed 

6 through an appropriate protective order. Id. This flip response to safety concerns is not 

7 helpful. 

8 Similarly, the defendants have also failed to articulate the specific bases for their 

9 safety concerns and privilege assertions in response to each of the document requests at 

10 issue. The Court can speculate that documents that pertain exclusively to the search of 

11 plaintiff Denise Ramos may not disclose information that would put inmates or correctional 

12 staff in jeopardy, and may therefore be subject to production, subject to a protective order. 

13 By contrast, documents that pertain to entry screening protocol in general, if produced 

14 without the protection of an appropriate protective order, could potentially be used by 

15 individuals seeking admittance to the facility to avoid the detection of contraband. Further, 

16 assuming that they have any relevance to this case at all, documents requested that address 

17 inmate procedures in the facility, or which involve investigations of plaintiffs' 

18 husband/father also raise viable security concerns, as would any documents referencing 

19 investigations pertaining to him. 

20 The Joint Motion also fails to adequately describe the efforts, if any, the parties have 

21 made to agree to terms of a tailored protective order. Specifically, in Section C, plaintiffs 

22 represents that the parties met and conferred and that plaintiffs' "offer to agree to a 

23 protective order was politely declined." [Doc. No. 43, p. 5]. The defendants state in the 

24 very next sentence that a protective order should be issued "in the event the Court orders 

25 any confidential or privileged documents to be produced." Id. No information is provided 

26 to the Court regarding efforts, if any, to reach an agreement regarding the terms for an 

27 

28 

8 

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02300-MMA-MSB Document 45 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 10
1 appropriate protective order.5 The quoted language, however, evidences a failure on the 

2 part of both parties to diligently endeavor to resolve this issue and to bring only matters in 

3 dispute to the Court's attention for resolution. 

4 The wholesale failure to meet and confer, in person, in detail about appropriate terms 

5 for a protective order and each of the discovery requests at issue is evident. As such, the 

6 parties have failed to comply with both Judge Bartick's Civil Chamber Rules and the Local 

7 Rules of this Court. See Judge Bartick's Chambers Rule IV; Civ.L.R. 26.1, 83.4. 

8 Based on the Court's reading of the Joint Motion, it is evident both parties 

9 completely ignored the proportionality prong of Rule 26(b)(l). For that reason, plaintiffs 

10 have not addressed whether the documents they seek are proportional to the needs of this 

11 case. Likewise, defendant has failed to demonstrate with specificity why the requested 

12 documents should not be produced. Neither party address factors which underly the 

13 proportionality analysis, namely, "the importance of the issues at stake in this action," "the 

14 burden of expense of some of the proposed discovery[,]" "the parties' relative access to 

15 relevant information, the parties' resources, or the importance of the discovery in resolving 

16 the issues." See N. U. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 3654759, at *7 (D. Kansas July 

17 8, 2016). As such, the Court finds both plaintiffs' requests and the defendants' objections 

18 to be unsustainably overbroad. 

19 CONCLUSION 

20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

21 1. The parties are ordered to meet and confer, in person, about (a) each and every 

22 discovery request addressed in the Joint Motion [Doc. No. 43], and (b) terms of a 

23 stipulated protective order no later than April 2, 2018. 

24 

25 

26 5 The Court recognizes that the discussion regarding a protective order has changed, now 

27 that the plaintiffs are represented by counsel. In light of the nature of some of the 

documents at issue, it is evident that a category of confidential documents marked as 

"Confidential-Counsel Only" is appropriate. 28 

9 

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02300-MMA-MSB Document 45 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 10
1 2. The parties are to submit a revised Joint Motion related to any outstanding discovery 

2 disputes which they are not able to resolve after conscientious meet and confer 

3 efforts in accordance with this Order, if necessary, no later than April 13, 2018.6 

4 3. The parties may file a joint motion for protective order no later than April 13, 2018 

5 subject to Rule V. of Judge Bartick's Chamber Rules. 

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

7 

8 Dated: March 20, 2018 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

United St tes Magistrate Judge 

6 If the parties choose to submit a revised Joint Motion, the parties shall submit the Joint 

Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute as follows: For each written discovery 

request in dispute, the Joint Motion must include: (1) The exact wording of the discovery 

request; (2) The exact response to the request by the responding party; (3) A statement by 

the propounding party and any points and authorities as to why a further response should 26 be compelled; and, (4) A precise statement by the responding party and any points and 

authorities as to the bases for all objections and/or claims of privilege. Any such joint 

motion shall be accompanied by a declaration from lead trial counsel of each party to the 

dispute establishing compliance with the meet and confer requirements. 

27 

28 

10 

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB) 

Case 3:16-cv-02300-MMA-MSB Document 45 Filed 03/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10