Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02307/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02307-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARC A. STERR, ) CASE NO. 2:08-CV-2307 DOC P

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) O R D E R DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

) TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

)

D. BAPTISTA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

Marc A. Sterr ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison

("MCSP") in Ione, California. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is

proceeding pro se. Plaintiff filed this motion to compel release of a document entitled "Religious

Programs, Need to Establish Statewide Departmental Policy" (the "Motion"). After considering

the moving and opposing papers, and for the reasons stated below, the Court hereby DENIES the

Motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint against Defendants D. Baptisa, S. Barham, Iman

Muhamad, D. Long, R. Subia, and M. Martel (collectively "Defendants") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on September 30, 2008. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants deny him the right to practice his

Case 2:08-cv-02307-DOC Document 77 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 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

2

religious faith of Asatru, an earth-based religion, while incarcerated at MSCP. Plaintiff alleges

that he is denied possession of religious artifacts, the ability to grow medicinal herbs, the use of a

ceremonial wood-burning fire, and authorization to have flowers grow on the ceremonial

spiritual grounds. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants temporally restrict his access to

spiritual grounds in violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. 

Plaintiff now requests a document entitled "Religious Programs, Need to Establish

Statewide Departmental Policy," a request opposed by Defendants on the basis that the document

is irrelevant to the instant case and protected by the deliberative process, attorney-client, and

work product privileges. A privilege log was provided to Plaintiff listing the date and title of the

document, the author, the recipients, the present location, the privileges asserted, and the content

description. The privilege log description of the document sought read:

Proposal to develop a consistent and detailed approach to evaluating and

responding to inmate request for religious items, for use by all CDCR institutions;

intended to generate further discussion and deliberation of such an approach, and

to develop a consistent policy for handling such inmate requests, to ensure

fairness and adherence to legal requirements. 

Defendants provided the Court with the document for in camera review, which

the Court has completed. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party may serve a request on another party to produce all relevant and

non-privileged documents in the possession, custody or control of the party served. FED.

R. CIV. P. 34(A). The party receiving the request shall serve a written response within 30

days, either stating that inspection will be permitted or objecting to the request and stating

the reasons for the objection. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(B). The party making the request may

seek a court order to compel disclosure when the responding party objects to the requests

or otherwise fails to respond to the request or to produce the documents. Id. 

Case 2:08-cv-02307-DOC Document 77 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 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

3

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that the document is irrelevant and protected by the deliberative

process, attorney-client, and work product privileges. The deliberative process privilege

allows a government agency to "withhold documents that reflect advisory opinions,

recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which government

decisions and policies are formulated." FTC v. Warner Communications, Inc., 742 F.2d

1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing NLRB v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150, 95

S. Ct. 1504, 1516, 44 L.ED.2d 29 (1975)); see also Arizona Rehabilitation Hosp., Inc. v.

Shalala, 185 F.R.D. 263, 267 (D. Ariz. 1998). In order for a document to be protected by

this privilege, it must be (1) "predecisional-it must have been generated before the

adoption of an agency's policy or decision," and (2) "deliberative in nature, containing

opinions, recommendations, or advice about agency policies." Id. (internal citations

omitted).

After review of the document, the Court finds that the privilege log description is

accurate. The document addresses the issue of developing a consistent and detailed

approach to evaluating and responding to inmate requests for religious items statewide. It

is a document of proposed recommendations intended to spark policy debate within the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") as part of the process

of deliberating whether to form a uniform policy on religious programs. Therefore, the

document was predecisional and deliberative. 

The deliberative process privilege is qualified, not absolute. Even once the Court

has found that the privilege applies, the documents will still be disclosed if the requesting

party's need for the documents outweighs the agency's interest in holding them. Modesto

Irrigation Dist. v. Gutierrez, 2007 WL 763370, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2007); Warner

Communications, 742 F.2d at 1161. In making this determination the Court shall

consider the following factors: (1) relevance of the evidence; (2) the availability of other

Case 2:08-cv-02307-DOC Document 77 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 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

4

evidence; (3) the government’s role in the litigation; and (4) the extent to which

disclosure would hinder frank and independent discussion regarding contemplated

policies and decisions. Warner Communications, 742 F.2d at 1161. 

The CDCR currently has a disparate religious programs policy, with each CDCR

institution implementing an independent policy. The CDCR has discussed whether

developing a uniform policy may be in the State's interest, and the Court finds that free

flow of frank discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of a uniform policy

would be hindered if policy discussions were disclosed. Release of this document could

prevent CDCR employees from expressing their candid opinions on policy for fear of

litigation and chill the development of progressive theories and proposals designed to

benefit the public and incarcerated individuals. 

Further, Plaintiff has already received other evidence through discovery, e.g.,

copies of the Federal Technical Reference and Mule Creek manuals that dictate what

personal congregate religious items are required by each religion and allowed by the

institution, which speak more directly to the information sought by Plaintiff – what

religious property the CDCR allows; and what religious groups are permitted or not

permitted to do. 

Specific policies of the individual CDCR institutions, including MCSP, are not

revealed in the requested document. As such, the Court is unable to draw any inferences

from the document that would have any impact on the instant case. The document is

therefore of little to no relevance. Given the availability of other evidence, the low

relevance of the requested document, and that release of the document would hinder frank

policy discussion, the Plaintiff’s need for the document is not outweighed by the CDCR’s

interest in withholding the document. Warner Communications, 742 F.2d at 1161. 

Consequently, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery is hereby DENIED on the

basis of the deliberative process privilege. 

Case 2:08-cv-02307-DOC Document 77 Filed 03/25/10 Page 4 of 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

IV. DISPOSITION

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion

to Compel Discovery is DENIED. 

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.

 

 DATED: March 23, 2010

 

 Hon. DAVID O. CARTER

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 Sitting By Designation

Case 2:08-cv-02307-DOC Document 77 Filed 03/25/10 Page 5 of 5