Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00219/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00219-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
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

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OR CLARIFICATION OF MAY 2, 2006

*E-FILED 6/9/06*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Michael Angelo MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Acting Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation; Eddie S. Ylst, Acting Warden of

San Quentin State Prison; and Does 1-50,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06 219 JF RS

Case Number C 06 926 JF RS

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION OR

CLARIFICATION OF MAY 2, 2006

ORDER

[Docket No. 153]

Plaintiff Michael Angelo Morales moves for reconsideration of this Court’s May 2, 2006

order (“May Order”) granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. 

Defendants oppose the motion and appear to seek, by way of that opposition, further limits on

the scope of discovery previously ordered.

Plaintiff contends that the May Order is internally inconsistent in requiring the

production of, among other items, disciplinary records of execution team members but denying

the production of documents held by defendants that pertain to personal, private information

regarding such matters as drug use or criminal histories. Plaintiff points out that such

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 158 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

information may well be contained in disciplinary records the May Order requires be produced.

In crafting the May Order, this Court attempted to strike a balance that would provide

plaintiff with information relevant to the qualifications of execution team members properly to

administer the combination of drugs utilized in the execution procedure, but at the same time to

take into account the legitimate privacy concerns of individual execution team members.

As noted in the May Order, disciplinary records may well touch upon the training,

experience and competence of team members. To the extent those records reflect that team

members were subject to discipline owing to drug use or criminal conduct, such records are

subject to production under the guidelines previously set forth. To the extent, however, that

defendants possess background material regarding team members that reflects criminal history or

controlled substance use that is unconnected to any disciplinary process, as previously noted in

the May Order, it need not be produced. Such information is simply too attenuated to the central

questions at issue here, namely the training, experience and competence of team members, to

warrant intrusion into their broader personal histories. 

The May Order provided that the actual names of members of the execution team would

be disclosed only to plaintiff’s investigator who would operate in conformity with the previously

entered protective order. By its opposition to plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, defendants

suggest that the investigator’s scope of exploration be narrowly limited. While, as reflected here

and in the May Order, limits on the type of information defendants must produce are appropriate,

that does not extend to constraints on the work of plaintiff’s investigator. To attempt to impose

such constraints would run the risk of unfairly inhibiting plaintiff’s ability to develop his case

and to corroborate and test the information received from the defendants.

In sum, therefore, (1) defendants shall produce disciplinary records pertaining to

execution team members including those that reflect disciplinary action premised upon criminal

conduct or controlled substance use. Defendants are not required to produce background

information pertaining to such subjects that are unconnected to a team member’s work

experience in defendants’ employ; (2) no limitations shall be placed on the scope of exploration

plaintiff’s investigator is permitted to undertake beyond the constraints imposed by the

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 158 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

protective order, and (3) all remaining materials responsive to discovery permitted by the May

Order as supplemented by this Order shall be produced by defendants within 20 days of this

date.

 It is so ordered.

DATED: June 9, 2006 __________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 158 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 3