Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00276-17/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BAJIT KAUR, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ALAMEIDA, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

CV F 05 276 OWW DLB

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION

FOR ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE 

[Doc 129]

Plaintiffs Baljit Kaur, Harnoor Kaur, Gurkirat Singh, and the estate of Khem Singh

(“plaintiffs”) filed applications for orders to show cause why civil contempt citations should not

issue against Special Agent Jeff Finch and James Tilton, Director of the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation and their attorney of record Peter Hirsig (collectively

“CDCR”)for their failure to comply with subpoena duces tecums served May 18, 2006 and

October 11, 2006. CDCR filed a response to the applications on February 27, 2007. At the

initial hearing on the applications held March 2, 2007, CDCR argued that plaintiffs failed to

comply with Local Rule 78-230 and failed to file a motion to compel to properly address the

issues. The Court granted CDCR’s request for additional time for further briefing. CDCR filed

additional briefing in support of its opposition to the applications on March 7, 2007. Plaintiffs

filed a reply on March 8, 2007.

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 154 Filed 05/23/07 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

Plaintiff’s application also raises issues regarding a further tour of CSATF. It is the Court’s understanding 1

that these issues were resolved at the hearing on March 2, 2007 and therefore they will not be addressed in this

Order.

2

BACKGROUND

Accordingly to the second amended complaint, Khem Singh, a 72 year old monolingual,

Punjabi-speaking elder at the time of his death, was incarcerated from October 15, 2001 until

February 16, 2004 at the California Department of Corrections Substance Abuse Treatment

Facility, Corcoran, California (“SATF”). Mr. Singh was a priest in the Sikh religion, which

prohibited him from eating meat or eggs and from eating any other food that was on the same

plate as meat. He was also disabled and in a wheelchair. Plaintiffs allege that throughout his

incarceration, Mr. Singh was denied medical and mental health care, he was abused, assaulted

and harassed. Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Singh eventually retreated to his cell, refused food and

died of starvation on February 16, 2004, weighing 80 pounds.

DISCOVERY DISPUTES

On May 8, 2007, plaintiffs served a subpoena duces tecum on CDCR listing 50 separate

document requests. On March 30, 2007, CDCR served objections to each of the requests. No

documents were produced in response to the subpoena. 

On October 4, 2006, plaintiffs issued a subpoena for the deposition of special agent Jeff

Finch. The deposition subpoena included seven (7) requests for documents identical to the initial

subpoena to CDCR. CDCR served objections to the document requests. 

The following document requests are still in dispute :

1

Request No. 2: Policies and Procedures at SATF from 2000

through February 16, 2004 regarding ensuring staff

implementation of prescribed medication and course of

treatment. 

Response: Material contains information that is absolutely privileged by Cal.

Gov. Code 6254. Material subject to conditional privilege of Evid. Code §

1040(b)(2), 1043, 1044 and 1045, as well as federal Official Information

Privilege, based on the highly sensitive nature of materials. Also subject to Civil

Code 1798, et seq. and is subject to 15 CCR § 3321.

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 154 Filed 05/23/07 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

Request No. 24: SATF Suicide Prevention Committee meeting minutes

and copies of all studies, reports and memoranda generated by the

Committee for the period of 2000 through February 16, 2004. 

Response: Material contains information that is absolutely privileged by Cal.

Gov. Code 6254. Material subject to conditional privilege of Evid. Code §

1040(b)(2), 1043, 1044 and 1045, as well as federal Official Information

Privilege, based on the highly sensitive nature of materials. Also subject to Penal

Code §§ 832.7 and 832.8, as well as Civil Code 1798, et seq. and is subject to

Title 15 CCR. Confidential and privileged under 10 U.S.C. § 1102(a).

Request No. 27: The work schedule for mental health staff for the

period from 2000 to February 16, 2004.

Response: Overbroad and burdensome. Material contains information that is

absolutely privileged by Cal. Gov. Code 6254. Material subject to conditional

privilege of Evid. Code § 1040(b)(2), 1043, 1044 and 1045, as well as federal

Official Information Privilege, based on the highly sensitive nature of materials. 

Also subject to Penal Code §§ 832.7 and 832.8, as well as Civil Code 1798, et

seq. and is subject to Title 15 CCR. 

Request No. 29: In addition to the above requested CDC Incident

Report and DR and PA Reports and associated documents, plaintiffs

request all documents, including but not limited to reports,

statements, correspondence, photographs, and video and audiotape

recordings, of any investigation, review or inquiry conducted by the

CDC into Khem Singh’s death and any cover-up of the circumstances

surrounding Kham Singh’s death.

Response: Material contains information that is absolutely privileged by Cal.

Gov. Code 6254. Material subject to conditional privilege of Evid. Code §

1040(b)(2), 1043, 1044 and 1045, as well as federal Official Information

Privilege, based on the highly sensitive nature of materials. Also subject to Penal

Code §§ 832.7 and 832.8, as well as Civil Code 1798, et seq. and is subject to

Title 15 CCR. Protected by Coleman. Attorney-client and/or work product.

Request No. 30: Decedent’s C-file, including any confidential portion thereof,

and any medical or psychiatric file regarding decedent.

Response: Such information is protected by California Civil Code sec. 56 and the

federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountablility Act (HIPAA). Material

contains information that is absolutely privileged by Cal. Gov. Code 624. 

Material subject to conditional privilege of Evid. Code § 1040(b)(2), 1043, 1044

and 1045, as well as federal Official Information Privilege, based on the highly

sensitive nature of materials. Also subject to Penal Code §§ 832.7 and 832.8, as

well as Civil Code 1798, et seq. and is subject to Title 15 CCR. 

Request No. 36: Any log which contains notations regarding Khem

Singh at SATF.

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 154 Filed 05/23/07 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

4

Response: Overbroad and burdensome. Narrow request.

Request No. 37: All documents provided to the California Inspector

General by the CDC and/or SATF regarding Khem Singh’s death.

Response: Overbroad and burdensome. Material contains information that is

absolutely privileged by Cal. Gov. Code 6254. Material subject to conditional

privilege of Evid. Code § 1040(b)(2), 1043, 1044 and 1045, as well as federal

Official Information Privilege, based on the highly sensitive nature of materials.

Request No. 42: All CDC 114 forms, or other logs, reports, and notes

maintained in the Control (or “Observation”) Booth of the Facility

where Khem Singh was housed at SATF until his death.

Response: Overbroad and burdensome. Material contains information that is

absolutely privileged by Cal. Gov. Code 6254. Material subject to conditional

privilege of Evid. Code § 1040(b)(2), 1043, 1044 and 1045, as well as federal

Official Information Privilege, based on the highly sensitive nature of materials. 

Also subject to Penal Code §§ 832.7 and 832.8, as well as Civil Code 1798, et

seq. and is subject to Title 15 CCR.

 

A. Relevancy, Admissibility and Adequate Specificity.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(1)(C) requires a subpoena to “designate” the

documents or records to be produced. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 45(a)(1)(C). The nonparty witness may

serve the subpoenaing attorney with written objections to inspection or copying of any or all the

designated materials. Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 45(c)(2)(B). If objection is made, the party serving the

subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy materials or inspect the premises, except

pursuant to an order from the court in which the subpoena was issued. Fed.R.Civ.Proc.

45(c)(2)(B). The court may grant orders to compel production, to limit the evidence produced

under the subpoena and/or such other orders as required to protect the witness against

unreasonable burden. See Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 45(c)(2). The Court “shall” quash or modify the

subpoena upon a finding of undue burden to the witness. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv). An

overbroad subpoena drafted without any attempt made “to try to tailor the information request to

the immediate needs of the case.” Mattel, Inc. V. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792, 813

(9 Cir. 2003) th. 

CDCR argues that Request numbers 36, 37 and 42 are “grossly overbroad” and therefore

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 154 Filed 05/23/07 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

plaintiffs’ application for OSC for these requests should be denied outright. In response,

plaintiffs represent that correspondence dated March 5, 2007 clarified the documents requested

and informed defendants, “Our understanding is that Mr. Hirsig will be providing all copies of

the logs in compliance with this request and the subpoena, including the logs identified during

Mr. Finch’s deposition and the MTA log identified during Mr. Shaw’s deposition. The request

would also include a copy of the evidence log pages which refer to evidence seized related to the

death of Khem Singh.” Plaintiffs also represent that CDCR produced the covers of log books but

not the content of the logbooks as well as portions of the floor log for the D5 housing unit

covering October 2003. 

The requests are not overly broad such that CDCR is subject to an undue burden in

responding to Request Numbers 36, 37 and 42. This is evidenced by CDCR’s partial responses. 

The objection is overruled. CDCR should produce the complete floor log for the D5 housing

unit covering October 2003, the complete log books for which only covers were previously

produced, the logs identified in Mr. Finch’s and Mr. Shaw’s depositions, as well as any other

logs referencing Mr. Singh as requested. 

B. Privilege Objections.

CDCR further objects to Request Numbers 30, 36, 37 and 42 on the grounds that the

requests potentially seek privileged and protected matter. Specifically, CDCR contends, 

Material contains information that is absolutely privileged by Cal.

Gov. Code 6254. Material subject to conditional privilege of Evid.

Code § 1040(b)(2), 1043, 1044 and 1045, as well as federal

Official Information Privilege, based on the highly sensitive nature

of materials.

In federal question cases, privileges asserted in response to discovery requests are

determined under federal law, not the law of the forum state. Fed. R. Evid. 501; United States v.

Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989); Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of

California, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975); Jackson v. County of Sacramento, 175 F.R.D.

653, 654 (E.D. Cal. 1997) (recognizing that the law of the forum state does not inform federal

privilege law in federal civil rights actions, and expressly holding that Cal. Evid. Code sections

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 154 Filed 05/23/07 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

6

1040 and 1043 did not govern the 1983 action); Folb v. Motion Picture Indus. Pension & Health

Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1169 (C.D.Cal. 1998). 

Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information, also known

as the governmental privilege, or state secret privilege. Kerr v. United States District Court for

the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975). The application of the

official information privilege is “contingent upon the competing interests of the requesting

litigant and subject to disclosure especially where protective measures are taken.” Id.

CDCR’s objections based on state law privileges (Evidence Code section 1040,

Government Code section 6254) are inapplicable in this 1983 action and are therefore overruled. 

Further, CDCR has failed to make the “substantial threshold showing” required to invoke the

federal official information privilege and to trigger the balancing test. Soto v. City of Concord,

162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D.Cal. 1995); Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 669 (N.D.Cal.

1987). To make this showing, Defendants must submit a declaration or affidavit from a

responsible official that includes the following: (1) an affirmation that the agency generated or

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

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

governmental or privacy interests that would be threatened by disclosure of the material to

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

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

interests, and (5) a projection of how much harm would be done to the threatened interests if

disclosure were made. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613. If the threshold burden is not met, the court

should order disclosure. If the burden is met, the court should order an in camera review of the

material and balance each party’s interests. Id. CDCR has not submitted any evidence,

declaration, affidavit, or otherwise from which the Court could even begin to determine whether

the threshold burden is met. CDCR’s objections to the subpoena based on the federal official

information privilege are therefore overruled. 

C. Federal Rule 26(b).

CDCR makes a generalized objection to the subpoenas on the ground that the records

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 154 Filed 05/23/07 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

7

sought are not relevant to any claim or defense. This objection is overruled as CDCR has failed

to explain or support the objection in any meaningful way. Without reference to specific

requests, the Court is unable to evaluate this general objection.

D. Privacy Rights.

For the reasons discussed above, CDCR’s reliance on state law privacy rights is

misplaced. Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can

be raised in response to discovery requests. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern

District, 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.1976) (balancing the invasion of minor's privacy rights

against the court's need for ward files); Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497

(10th Cir.1992), cert. den. 507 U.S. 910, 113 S.Ct. 1255, 122 L.Ed.2d 654 (1993) (denying

discovery of names of participants in a medical study due to privacy interests of the individual

participants); Cook v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 550-51 (E.D.Cal.1990)

(balancing targeted individual's right of privacy against public's need for discovery in

employment discrimination case). 

In Request Number 27, plaintiff seeks the work schedules of all mental health staff for the

period 2000 through February 16, 2004. CDCR argues that requesting information related to

every staff member’s schedule is unreasonable and burdensome and violative of the privacy

rights of these individuals. 

Information relating to the work schedules of mental health staff assigned to the units or

buildings where plaintiff was housed during his incarceration is relevant to the claims in this case

and should be produced by CDCR. The balance of hardships tips in plaintiff’s favor for a limited

disclosure, subject to the conditions of this order and for use only in this litigation. Concerns

relating to private information, such as social security numbers, which may be included in these

documents can be addressed by redaction. CDCR shall therefore produce redacted versions of

the documents to plaintiff pursuant to the terms of this Order and the Stipulated Protected Order

filed on November 6, 2006. 

Request Number 29 seeks documents concerning the investigation conducted by CDCR

into Mr. Singh’s death. CDCR raises specific concerns about producing the “tape recordings of

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 154 Filed 05/23/07 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

employees.” CDCR argues the recorded statements are privileged and obtained with the mind set

that the Department is afforded all protections guaranteed by the law, including that of privacy. 

CDCR further argues that disclosure may result in limited participation by those who have

information. 

Information relating to CDCR’s investigation into Mr. Singh’s death, including recorded

statements is relevant to plaintiff’s claims. While the court is mindful of the potential adverse

consequences resulting from disclosure, CDCR’s concerns are, as in numerous civil rights cases

involving CDCR pending in this Court, addressed by the Stipulated Protected Order. Therefore

the balance of hardships tips in plaintiff’s favor for a limited disclosure, subject to the conditions

of this order and for use only in this litigation. 

E. Order 

Plaintiff’s application for an Order to Show Cause is granted in part. CDCR’s objections

to the subpoena are overruled as discussed in this Order. CDCR is granted 20 days to comply

with the subpoenas issued and specifically to produce documents responsive to Request Numbers

2, 24, 27 (limited to information relating to the work schedules of mental health staff assigned to

the units or buildings where plaintiff was housed during his incarceration), 29, 30, 36, 37 and 42

subject to the Stipulated Protected Order filed November 6, 2006. CDCR may redact any and all

personal information including but not limited to social security numbers, home addresses,

telephone numbers, family information and background information of defendants or any other

employees or inmates who are not parties to this action. Failure to comply with the Subpoena as

ordered herein, will result in institution of civil contempt proceedings. CDCR shall file a notice

of compliance with this Order within 20 days. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 23, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00276-OWW -DLB Document 154 Filed 05/23/07 Page 8 of 8