Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-141/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P

THREE-JUDGE COURT

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

ORDER

This matter came on for hearing on August 7, 2008 on three discovery disputes. Maria

V. Morris, Esq., appeared as counsel for the Coleman plaintiffs. Rebekah Evenson, Esq.,

appeared as counsel for the Plata plaintiffs. Lisa Tillman, Deputy Attorney General,

appeared as counsel for the Coleman defendants. S. Anne Johnson, Esq. and Renju Jacobs,

Esq. appeared as counsel for the Plata defendants. Two of the disputes are resolved herein,

while the third is resolved pursuant to a stipulation reached by the parties at the time of the

hearing and approved by separate order of this court.

/////

///// 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1385 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 8
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

 All other disputes set forth in the parties’ August 1, 2008 Joint Statement Re

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses and Production have been resolved by

the parties either prior to or at the August 7, 2008 hearing on the motion. 

2

I. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses and Production

The first dispute centers on whether defendants should be compelled to provide

supplemental responses to requests 22, 28, 30 and 38 of the Coleman plaintiffs’ First Request

for Production of Documents and to requests 32 and 33 of the Plata plaintiffs’ First Request

for Production of Documents.1

 Plaintiffs seek an order compelling supplemental responses to

these requests pursuant to Rules 26(e) and 37(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants oppose the motion on two separate grounds. With respect to requests 22

and 38 of the Coleman plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of Documents, defendants

state that they “do not believe any new documents exist that will be responsive to these

requests.” Joint Statement Re Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses and

Production, at 18. With respect to the other four requests, defendants assert that they are not

obligated to provide supplemental responses because their initial responses to these four

requests were “solely objections and Plaintiffs never filed a motion to compel further

responses.” Id. at 18-19.

Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part:

(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses.

(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule

26(a)--or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for

production, or request for admission--must supplement or correct

its disclosure or response:

(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in

some material respect the disclosure or response is

incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or

corrective information has not otherwise been made

known to the other parties during the discovery

process or in writing; or

(B) as ordered by the court.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Under Rule 26(e), litigants have a continuing duty to supplement their

discovery responses at appropriate intervals if the prior responses were “incomplete or

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1385 Filed 08/14/08 Page 2 of 8
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

incorrect” and “additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to”

their opponent during discovery or in writing. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 26(e)(1).

The sanction for failing to comply with Rule 26(e) is set forth in Rule 37(c), which

provides:

(c) Failure to Disclose, to Supplement an Earlier Response, or to Admit.

(1) Failure to Disclose or Supplement. If a party fails to provide

information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e),

the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to

supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the

failure was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or

instead of this sanction, the court, on motion and after giving an

opportunity to be heard:

(A) may order payment of the reasonable expenses,

including attorney's fees, caused by the failure;

(B) may inform the jury of the party's failure; and

(C) may impose other appropriate sanctions,

including any of the orders listed in Rule

37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). Rule 37(c) “gives teeth” to the requirements of Rule 26(e) “by

forbidding the use on a motion or at trial of any information required to be disclosed by” that

rule, unless the parties’ failure to disclose the required information is substantially justified

or harmless. See Yetti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th

Cir.2001) Rule 37(c) was promulgated to be “self-executing” in order to provide “a strong

inducement for disclosure.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c), advisory comm. Note (1993). 

Defendants have not attempted to tender into evidence information responsive to these

requests that has not been produced to plaintiffs during discovery. To the extent that

plaintiffs seek an order precluding defendants from using on a substantive motion or at trial

information responsive to the six requests at issue in this dispute, the Rule 37(c) motion is

premature. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1385 Filed 08/14/08 Page 3 of 8
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

 Defendants also contend that plaintiffs only identified these individuals as trial

witnesses to evade the requirement of the three-judge court’s July 2, 2008 order prohibiting,

absent a showing of very good cause, the depositions of witnesses who will not be called to

testify at trial, see Order filed July 2, 2008, at 2, and that plaintiffs have not shown “very

good cause” for these three depositions. Plaintiffs note that they identified all defendants as

potential witnesses in their initial disclosures, and that the proposed deponents were

specifically identified identified as potential witnesses by the legislative intervenors in their

initial disclosures. See Ex. S. to Evenson Declaration in Support of Joint Statement Re

Discovery Disputed About Depositions, filed August 1, 2008. Defendants now represent that

only plaintiffs have identified the three proposed deponents as trial witnesses in the August 1,

2008 disclosures of non-expert trial witnesses, and that they will object to these three being

called as trial witnesses. Defendants’ Statement in Response to Court’s Inquiries, filed

August 11, 2008, at 2. This court finds no purpose of evasion in the manner in which these

individuals were named as trial witnesses by plaintiffs and, in any event, as discussed infra

that “very good cause” appears in the record for each of the proposed depositions.

4

II. Depositions

The second dispute arises from three deposition notices served by plaintiffs for the

depositions of three individuals that plaintiffs have identified as witnesses for trial: Susan

Kennedy, Chief of Staff to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; Governor Arnold

Schwarzenegger, who is a named defendant in this action; and Deputy Cabinet Secretary

Robert Gore. The depositions are noticed for September 2, 3 and 4, 2008, respectively. 

Defendants contend that these three individuals are entitled to the limited immunity from

depositions afforded to high-ranking government officials.2

The immunity on which defendants rely originated in United States v. Morgan, 313

U.S. 409 (1941). In Morgan, “the district court allowed plaintiffs to take the deposition of

the Secretary of Agriculture regarding decisions made in his official capacity, and

subsequently to call him to testify at trial.” Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 648 (C.D.Cal.

2005). The Court held that it was error to permit inquiry into the mental process of the

Secretary of Agriculture in making an order fixing maximum rates to be charged by market

agencies at the Kansas City Stockyards. Morgan, 313 U.S. at 421-22. The Court reasoned

that the administrative proceeding at issue was similar to a judicial proceeding and that “just

as a judge cannot be subjected to such a scrutiny . . . so the integrity of the administrative

process must be equally respected.” Id. at 422. 

/////

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1385 Filed 08/14/08 Page 4 of 8
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

Since Morgan, other courts have held that high public officials “‘“should not, absent

extraordinary circumstances, be called to testify regarding their reasons for taking official

actions.”’” Green, 226 F.R.D. at 648 (quoting In re United States, 985 F.2d 510, 512 (11th

Cir.1993) (in turn quoting Simplex Time Recorder Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 766 F.2d 575,

586 (D.C.Cir.1985)). In addition, courts have recognized that high-ranking public officials

“‘should not have to spend their time giving depositions in cases arising out of the

performance of their official duties unless there is some reason to believe that the deposition

will produce or lead to admissible evidence.’” Stagman v. Ryan, 176 F.3d 986, 994-95 (7th

Cir. 1999) (quoting Olivieri v. Rodriguez, 122 F.3d 406, 409-10 (7th Cir. 1997), cert. denied,

522 U.S. 1110 (1998)); see also Kyle Eng. Co. v. Kleppe, 600 F.2d 226, 231-32 (9th

Cir.1979) ( “Heads of government agencies are not normally subject to deposition and the

district court’s order directing [the Administrator of the Small Business Administration] to

answer interrogations in lieu of a deposition does not appear unreasonable.” (internal citation

omitted)).

The immunity from testifying at a deposition afforded to high-ranking officials is not

absolute. Courts have permitted depositions of high-ranking government officials on a

showing that the officials had “‘direct personal factual information pertaining to material

issues in an action . . . [that] is not available through any other source.’” Green, 226 F.R.D.

at 648 (quoting Church of Scientology of Boston v. I.R.S., 138 F.R.D. 9, 12 (D.Mall. 1990). 

Courts have also permitted depositions of high-ranking government officials on a showing

that the officials approved or were personally involved in matters at issue in the litigation. 

See, e.g., Bagley v. Blagojevich, 486 F.Supp.2d 786, 789 (C.D.Ill. 2007); see also Prisma

Zona Exploratoria De Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Calderon, 154 F.Supp.2d 245 (D.P.R. 2001). 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1385 Filed 08/14/08 Page 5 of 8
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

 The parties have not squarely addressed the question of which party has the burden

of proof on the instant motion. The motion has been framed as a request for depositions,

rather than as a motion for a protective order, and the parties apparently agree that plaintiffs

have the burden of making the showing required to establish that the deponents are not

entitled to immunity from being deposed. This is in accord with the decisions of at least two

district courts in the Seventh Circuit. See Bagley, 486 F.Supp.2d at 789 (quoting Hobley v.

Burge, 2007 WL 551569, at 2 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 22, 2007). 

6

The record before the court shows that all three of the proposed deponents have

personal knowledge of facts related to, or direct involvement in, matters related to issues at

bar.3

 The instant proceedings originated with motions by the Coleman and Plata plaintiffs to

convene a three-judge panel to limit the prison population in California. In its July 23, 2007

order granting plaintiffs’ motion in the Coleman case, the Coleman court found, inter alia,

that “[t]here is no dispute that prisons in California are seriously and dangerously

overcrowded [and] [t]he Governor of California has repeatedly and eloquently noted the

public emergency caused by overcrowded prison conditions.” Order filed July 23, 2007, at

8. In addition, plaintiffs have made a persuasive showing: that the Governor has made a

number of public pronouncements on matters that will be at issue at the trial of this matter,

that the Governor has been personally involved in meetings and strategy sessions with state

legislative leaders and others concerning prison overcrowding, and that the Governor has

personal information relevant to several defenses tendered in these proceedings. See, e.g.,

Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Dispute About Depositions, filed August 1, 2008, at 6-

9, 22, and documents cited therein. Similarly, plaintiffs have made a persuasive evidentiary

showing of the personal involvement of Deputy Cabinet Secretary Gore and Chief of Staff

Kennedy in matters of critical importance to the proceedings at bar. Id. at 9-11, 22 and

documents cited therein. Plaintiffs are entitled to inquire about these matters directly of the

Governor, his deputy cabinet secretary and his chief of staff.

Defendants contend that the information plaintiffs seek through these three

depositions is equally available to plaintiffs through depositions of other state officials or

serving written discovery requests on the Governor, or through documents produced by

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1385 Filed 08/14/08 Page 6 of 8
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

 In a footnote in their part of the joint statement filed in connection with this dispute,

plaintiffs noted that defendants had failed to produce documents in accordance with orders of

this court filed April 14, 2008 and May 29, 2008, despite the fact that the three-judge court

had denied requests for reconsideration or for stay of both orders. At the August 7, 2008

hearing of this matter, the court directed defendants to file by noon on August 11, 2008, a

statement of the authority on which they were relying for their continued non-compliance

with this court’s orders or a statement that the documents had been delivered. On August 11,

2008, defendants filed a statement that the documents would be delivered to plaintiffs by

noon that day. In the statement, defendants assert that the documents so produced “provid[e]

Plaintiffs with yet another source of the information they seek.” Defendants’ Statement in

Response to Court’s Inquiries, filed August 11, 2008, at 2. To put it mildly, even if

defendants had endeavored to actually make an evidentiary showing to support this assertion,

which they have not, it comes too late.

7

defendants during the course of these proceedings.4

 In fact, plaintiffs have made a sufficient

showing that the information they seek from the three proposed deponents is uniquely

possessed by those three individuals, and that depositions are the most appropriate way to

elicit that information. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ request for a court order allowing them to depose

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Deputy Cabinet Secretary Robert Gore, and Chief of

Staff Susan Kennedy will be granted. The deposition of the Governor shall take place at the

time and place identified in Plaintiffs’ July 10, 2008 Notice of Deposition and Revised

Notice of Deposition of Defendant Witnesses, and shall not exceed four hours. The

depositions of Deputy Cabinet Secretary Robert Gore and Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy

shall take place at the times identified in Plaintiffs’ July 10, 2008 Notice of Deposition and

Revised Notice of Deposition of Defendant Witnesses. Within five days from the date of this

order, Deputy Cabinet Secretary Robert Gore and Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy may request

of plaintiffs, orally or in writing, that the depositions be conducted at their regular place of

business, which requests if made shall be honored by plaintiffs. The depositions of Deputy

Cabinet Secretary Robert Gore and Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy shall not exceed six hours

each.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ July 21, 2008 motion to compel supplemental responses and production

is denied on this record.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1385 Filed 08/14/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8

2. Plaintiffs’ July 21, 2008 motion to compel the depositions of Governor Arnold

Schwarzenegger, Deputy Cabinet Secretary Robert Gore, and Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy

is granted, as follows:

a. The deposition of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger shall take place at the

time and place identified in Plaintiffs’ July 10, 2008 Notice of Deposition and Revised

Notice of Deposition of Defendant Witnesses, and shall not exceed four hours. 

b. The depositions of Deputy Cabinet Secretary Robert Gore and Chief of Staff

Susan Kennedy shall take place at the times identified in Plaintiffs’ July 10, 2008 Notice of

Deposition and Revised Notice of Deposition of Defendant Witnesses. Within five days

from the date of this order, Deputy Cabinet Secretary Robert Gore and Chief of Staff Susan

Kennedy may request of plaintiffs, orally or in writing, that the depositions be conducted at

their regular place of business, which requests if made shall be honored by plaintiffs. The

depositions of Deputy Cabinet Secretary Robert Gore and Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy

shall not exceed six hours each.

DATED: August 14, 2008.

 

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1385 Filed 08/14/08 Page 8 of 8