Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01676/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01676-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL SALAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01676-JST (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 71

INTRODUCTION

On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison 

(“PBSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to his request for production of documents. 

(Docket No. 71.) Defendants oppose the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to 

compel will be granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff claims that PBSP officials and staff have impeded his efforts to practice his 

Jewish religion. On June 6, 2015, the Court found that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”) stated the following cognizable claims: 

(1) kitchen staff employees Cooper, Plunkett, Reidel, Ireland, and Young; Supervising 

Correctional Cooks Gomez and Halls; Correctional Business Manager Lemos; Correctional Food 

Managers Sojka and Rias; Community Resource Manager Losacco; Warden Lewis; and Chief 

Deputy Warden Ducart violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, 

and violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 

Case 3:14-cv-01676-JST Document 83 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 10
2

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

(“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 by denying his requests for a religious diet and other religious 

accommodations; 

(2) CDCR Departmental Food Administrator Maurino violated Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and his rights under RLUIPA based on her role 

in developing and administering new diet programs at CDCR institutions;

(3) kitchen staff employees Cooper, Plunkett, Reidel, Ireland, and Young; Supervising 

Correctional Cooks Gomez and Halls; Correctional Business Manager Lemos; Correctional Food 

Managers Sojka and Rias; Community Resource Manager Losacco; Warden Lewis; and Chief 

Deputy Warden Ducart violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and 

unusual punishment by failing to provide him food that he could eat consistent with his religious 

beliefs; and

(4) Correctional Captain Osborne, Correctional Administrator Bradbury, Facility Captain 

Walsh, and Correctional Counselors Webster and Markel’s refusal to transfer Plaintiff to a new 

prison violated his First Amendment religious freedom, RLUIPA, and Eighth Amendment rights.

See Docket No. 67 at 4–6.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

On February 11, 2015, Plaintiff served a request for production of documents (“RFP”)1on 

Defendants. See Docket No. 71-1 at 1. On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff informed Defendants via 

letter that he had not received a timely response and that Defendants’ objections were therefore 

waived. See Docket No. 71-2 at 2–3. He requested that Defendants produce documents 

responsive to his RFP. See id. On March 17, 2015, Defendants timely served responses to the 

RFP2and produced documents bates-stamped CDCR 00001-00164. See Docket No. 73 at 2 and 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) and 6(d). In their responses, Defendants stated that they would not 

produce any further documents. See Docket No. 71-2 at 9–12 and Docket No. 73 at 2. On March 

16, 2015, Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s letter dated March 16, 2015. 

 

1 A copy of the RFP is contained in Plaintiff’s motion to compel at Docket 71-2 at 2–3. 

2 A copy of Defendants’ responses are contained in Plaintiff’s motion to compel at Docket 71-2 at 

9–17. 

Case 3:14-cv-01676-JST Document 83 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 10
3

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

On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his RFP, see 

Docket No. 53, which the Court denied without prejudice for failing to certify that he had fulfilled 

the meet-and-confer requirements under Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

Civil Local Rule 37-1(a), see Docket No. 58. 

On April 30, 2015, Defendants reiterated to Plaintiff, via written letter, that their responses 

had been timely and complete. See Docket No. 71-2 at 20–21. On May 3, 2015, Plaintiff 

responded to Defendants’ April 30, 2015 letter, again requesting further responses to his RFP. See 

Docket No. 71-2 at 29–31. Plaintiff has therefore fulfilled the meet-and-confer requirements 

under Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local Rule 37-1(a). See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and L.R. 37-1(a).

Overall, Defendants have produced 399 pages of responsive documents. See Docket No. 

73 at 3. Defendants state that these documents include information on Kosher meal vendors, 

Kosher menus, nutritional information for Kosher meals, the statewide procedure for Kosher 

meals, the prison’s local operating procedure related to religious programs, Plaintiff’s prison 

grievances, and the prison’s response to these grievances. See id.

DISCUSSION

A party may obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible 

at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevancy, for the purposes of discovery, is defined 

broadly, although it is not without ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 

234 F.R.D. 674, 679–80 (N.D. Cal. 2006).

A. Document Request No. 1

Document Request No. 1 requests:

[a]ny and all grievances, complaints, or other documents received by prison staff 

concerning the preparation and serving of inmates (Kosher) meals and any memorandums, 

investigation files or other documents created in response to such complaints since 

November 1, 2012.

See Docket No. 71 at 1. Defendants have produced all grievances from Plaintiff that concern the 

Case 3:14-cv-01676-JST Document 83 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 10
4

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

claims he has raised in this action, totaling 164 pages of documents. See Docket No. 71-2 at 10. 

Defendants refuse to produce any further documents on two grounds. 

First, Defendants claim that California laws prohibit them from releasing information from 

the central files of other inmates. Specifically, section 3370(b) of the California Code of 

Regulations, title 15, prohibits inmates from having access to another [inmate]’s case records file 

. . . or component thereof” except “by means of a valid authorization, subpoena, or court order.” 

15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3370(b). The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

Operations Manual (“DOM”) prohibits the dissemination of an inmate’s records to other inmates 

without “prior written, voluntary, and timely consent of the individual to whom the record 

pertain[.]” DOM § 13030.14. 

Second, Defendants claim that the request is unmanageable and “impossibly” burdensome 

because it is not limited to Pelican Bay inmates, and because the manner in which inmate 

grievances are kept mean that grievances cannot easily be searched by subject matter. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ objections are meritless because the existence of other 

inmate complaints regarding their Kosher diet could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 

Defendants could redact identifying information from the complaints; the likely benefit outweighs 

any burden to Defendants; and such information could reveal more culpable parties. See Docket 

No. 71-2 at 30.

The Court finds that Defendants have adequately responded to RFP No. 1. Defendants’

objections are sustained. Section 3370(b) of the California Code of Regulations, title 15, and 

Section 13030.14 of the DOM prohibit the release of this information. There is no exception for 

release of this information in redacted form. Moreover, the documents are not relevant to the 

claims in the instant litigation, namely whether Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights. The 

documents sought concern whether CDCR employees have violated the First Amendment and 

RLUIPA rights of other California prisoners. After considering the needs of the case and the 

importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues, the Court finds that the burden of 

the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). The 

Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to RFP No. 1.

Case 3:14-cv-01676-JST Document 83 Filed 01/08/16 Page 4 of 10
5

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

B. Document Request No. 2

Document Request No. 2 requests:

[a]ny and all information about the defendants with respect to prior records that may be 

relevant to their credibility and other issues such as documents of personnel complaints.

(Docket No. 71 at 2.) Defendants have produced no documents in response to this request. 

Defendants object that the documents seek information protected by the official information 

privilege; and that the request for “prior records” is vague. (Docket No. 72 at 4–5.) Plaintiff 

responds that the responsive documents can be redacted to hide personal information; that 

evidence that “repeated complaints about unsanitary-wholesome food have been made and that 

defendants did not act on such information” is relevant to establish supervisory liability; and that 

“[e]vidence of prior incidents by prison personnel . . . is relevant to ‘motive, opportunity, intent, 

preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.’” (Docket No. 71-2 at 

30–31.) 

“Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information.” Sanchez 

v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1991). The privilege is “broad enough to 

cover all disparate kinds of data and communications that can be involved in these types of” civil 

rights cases against governmental actors. Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 659 (N.D. Cal 

1987). Government personnel files are among the types of official information to which the 

privilege may be applied. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033. “To determine whether the information 

sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential 

disadvantages. If the latter is great, the privilege bars discovery.” Id. at 1033–34. The party 

opposing disclosure must make a substantial threshold showing by submitting a declaration or 

affidavit from a responsible person “stat[ing] with specificity the rationale of the claimed 

privilege.” Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Northern Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th 

Cir. 1975). In order for the Court to determine whether the official information privilege applies, 

a defendant must provide with the objection a declaration or affidavit containing (1) an affirmation 

that the agency generated or collected the material in issue and has in fact maintained its 

confidentiality, (2) a statement that the official has personally reviewed the material in question, 

Case 3:14-cv-01676-JST Document 83 Filed 01/08/16 Page 5 of 10
6

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

(3) a specific identification of the governmental or privacy interests that would be threatened by 

disclosure of the material to the plaintiff, (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 the disclosure were made. Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 670.

Defendants make a sufficient showing that the confidential documents and confidential 

information sought regarding cell searches are covered by the official information privilege with 

the declaration of S. Soderlund, the litigation coordinator at Pelican Bay. See Docket No.71-2 at 

15–17. The burden thus shifts to Plaintiff to: (1) show how the requested information is relevant 

to the litigation or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (2) 

identify his interests that would be harmed if the material were not disclosed; and (3) show how 

that harm would occur and how extensive it would be. Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 671. 

Plaintiff has not met his burden. He does not identify his interests that will be harmed if 

the materials are not disclosed and does not explain how that harm will occur or how extensive it 

will be. He also fails to show that the information is relevant. A showing that a supervisor acted, 

or failed to act, in a manner that violated an inmate’s constitutional rights demonstrates 

supervisory liability. See, e.g., Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1206–07 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Complaints against Defendants that are unrelated to Plaintiff’s exercise of his religious rights 

would not be relevant to a finding of supervisory liability or to any finding of culpability. Plaintiff 

cites an employment discrimination case for the proposition that prior incidents are relevant to 

motive or intent. However, that proposition is specific to racial discrimination cases. See, e.g., 

Sussel v.Wynne, No. CIV 05–00444 ACK/KSC, 2006 WL 5940802, *2 (D. Haw. Oct. 12, 2006). 

Moreover, any prior complaints have limited probative value in determining Defendants’ intent in 

choosing Kosher menus and serving Kosher meals. Prior complaints would, at most, be relevant 

to Defendants’ credibility if they claim that any failures to serve Plaintiff Kosher meals were 

mistakes. 

To the extent that materials in Defendants’ personnel files might be relevant to 

Defendants’ credibility or be relevant for impeachment purposes, such documents are not 

Case 3:14-cv-01676-JST Document 83 Filed 01/08/16 Page 6 of 10
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

necessary at this point in the litigation. On a motion to dismiss, a reviewing court accepts factual 

allegations in the complaint as true and construes the pleadings in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). On a summary 

motion, a reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, 

and the inferences to be drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party. See T.W. Elec. Serv. Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631

(9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Defendants’ credibility is not currently at issue. If this case goes to 

trial, Plaintiff may seek materials from Defendants’ personnel files in more narrowly tailored 

discovery requests. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to 

RFP No. 2.

C. Document Request No. 3

Document Request No. 3 requests:

Any and all information about the Nutritional facts of ech (sic) Kosher food products –

meals (exclusively from Element Food Company) including the ingredient contents and the 

cost of the Element Kosher Food Program.

(Docket No. 71 at 2.) Defendants state that they have already produced responsive documents, 

specifically 188 pages of nutritional information for Elements Foods and Kosher foods. Of these 

188 pages, 28 pages were filed with the Court as part of Defendant CDCR Departmental Food 

Administrator L. Maurino’s declaration in support of Defendants’ summary judgment motion. See

Docket No. 42-1 at 26–52. The Maurino declaration establishes that the CDCR’s standard Kosher 

menu is based on a three-week cycle that is repeated throughout the year. See Docket No. 42 at ¶ 

18. Defendants provided the standard three-week Kosher menu for fiscal years 2012-2013 and 

2013-2014, which were the fiscal years that Elements Foods was contracted to provide Kosher 

meals. See id. at ¶ 18 and Exhs. C and D. The menus list the specific items provided at each meal 

and the portion size of each item. See id., Exhs. C and D. Defendants also provided a copy of a 

one-page chart that lists the overall caloric and nutritional composition of Elements Foods Kosher 

meals. See id., Exh. A. However, there is nothing in the record that shows the nutritional 

information per item. This type of information was provided for the Kosher meals prepared by the 

Bateman Facility, see id., Ex. G, and Plaintiff is entitled to this type of information for the meals 

Case 3:14-cv-01676-JST Document 83 Filed 01/08/16 Page 7 of 10
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

provided by Elements Foods. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP No. 3 is 

therefore GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to produce any and all documents that specify the 

specific nutritional information of each item in the meals prepared by Elements Foods. If this 

information has already been produced, e.g. included in 160 pages of nutritional information 

produced to Plaintiff but not filed with the Court, or if no such documents are available, 

Defendants should inform Plaintiff accordingly and identify, by Bates number, the documents that 

contain the information. 

In addition, Plaintiff requests that Defendants “state if [the documents already produced] 

are an accurate representation of the food products in question, specifically, nutritional 

components-value which [Plaintiff] was receiving during relevant time frames, and if so, whether 

this information form[ed] the basis for CDCR standardized Kosher food program at all institutions 

included PBSP.” See Docket No. 71-2 at 38. If Plaintiff has questions about the documents 

produced, he may direct these questions to Defendants by propounding interrogatories. By 

producing responsive documents, Defendants have met their discovery obligations for this RFP. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (party may respond to RFPs by filing objections, setting a time for 

inspection of documents, or by producing copies of documents). 

D. Document Request No. 4

Document Request No. 4 requests:

[a]ny and all policies, directives, procedures, and/or instructions to Kitchen staff 

concerning Kosher serving and preparations.

(Docket No. 71 at 2.) Defendants state that they have already produced Kosher menus, 

information regarding CDCR’s Kosher meal vendors, the statewide procedure for Kosher meals, 

and the prison’s local operating procedures related to religious programs. Plaintiff appears to find 

Defendants’ production insufficient for two reasons. First, Plaintiff claims that this request seeks 

relevant evidence because “it concerns Defendants knowledge and identities of those directly 

involve (sic).” See Docket No. 71-2 at 39. Second, Plaintiff states that Defendants have failed to 

provide verification that the documents produced were in effect at the relevant times. See id. 

Similar to RFP No. 4, by producing responsive documents, Defendants have met their discovery 

Case 3:14-cv-01676-JST Document 83 Filed 01/08/16 Page 8 of 10
9

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

obligations for this RFP. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (party may respond to RFPs by filing objections, 

setting a time for inspection of documents, or by producing copies of documents). Defendants are 

not required to provide verifications or explanations to accompany responsive documents. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff may use interrogatories or a more narrowly tailored RFP to ascertain when 

the documents already produced were in effect. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion to 

compel further responses to RFP No. 4.

E. Document Request No. 5

Document Request No. 5 requests:

[a]ny and all information – documents about R. Losacco’s effects in seeking donations in 

order to obtain religious material for jewish inmates.

(Docket No. 71 at 2.) Defendants argue that this request does not seek documents relevant to the 

allegations in the FAC. Plaintiff argues that “considering that defendant Losacco is responsible in 

making religious accomadations (sic), coordinating religious activity, this request is within its 

boundaries, for plaintiff claims that PBSP jewish religious program is constitutionally inadequate 

which places a substantial burden on plaintiff’s religious freedoms.” See Docket No. 71-2 at 39. 

The Court agrees with Defendants that RFP 5 requests documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Because Plaintiff has access to Jewish 

religious texts in the prison chapel and library, it appears that Plaintiff is arguing that he is entitled 

to a personal copy of Jewish religious texts. See FAC ¶¶ 127, 135–138, and 166; and Docket No. 

41 (“Losacco Decl.”) ¶ 11. The relevant issue is therefore whether Defendants’ failure to provide 

Plaintiff with personal copies of Jewish religious texts burdened Plaintiff’s practice of his religion 

without either (1) justification reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, see Shakur v. 

Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883–84 (9th Cir. 2008), or (2) without furthering a compelling 

governmental interest; and without choosing the least restrictive means of furthering that interest, 

see 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). In other words, if Defendants prohibited Losacco from seeking 

donations of religious texts, this could arguably lead to admissible evidence, assuming that the 

lack of individual religious texts burdened an inmate’s practice of his religion. However, 

Losacco’s efforts to accommodate Plaintiff’s request is not relevant to whether Plaintiff’s practice 

Case 3:14-cv-01676-JST Document 83 Filed 01/08/16 Page 9 of 10
10

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

of his religion has been burdened or to whether PBSP’s “Jewish religious program” is adequate. 

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to RFP No. 5.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART. 

This order terminates Docket No. 71.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01676-JST Document 83 Filed 01/08/16 Page 10 of 10