Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00234/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00234-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST HENDERSON, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al,

Defendants.

 /

No C-05-234 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiffs, who are present and former inmates of the San

Francisco County Jail, claim that the individual sheriff’s deputy

defendants violated plaintiffs’ due process rights by using

excessive force against plaintiffs and were deliberately

indifferent to plaintiffs’ serious medical needs during five

separate incidents between December 2003 and December 2004. 

Plaintiffs also allege that the City and County of San Francisco,

the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, the San Francisco

Department of Public Health Services and Sheriff Michael Hennessey

established various customs and practices that enabled the deputy

defendants to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Doc #1.

//

Case 3:05-cv-00234-VRW Document 143 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On September 1, 2006, the court ordered defendants to

provide plaintiffs with all grievances classified as “complaints

against staff” that were filed in San Francisco county jail #2

between May 1, 2003, and May 1, 2004. Doc #110. On September 6,

2006, defendants requested leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of the court’s discovery order, Doc #112, and

administratively moved to stay the discovery order pending the

court’s reconsideration, Doc #113. 

Defendants argue that plaintiffs “cannot be relied on to

comply with the court’s protective order,” which plaintiffs

allegedly violated on August 24, 2006, by filing in the public

court docket confidential personnel information previously produced

by defendants. Doc #112 at 2. Reconsideration is necessary,

according to defendants, because the court’s discovery order relied

in significant part on the existence of the parties’ protective

order to safeguard confidentiality. Id. As a practical matter,

defendants’ motion asks the court to sanction plaintiffs’ alleged

violations by halting discovery ordered by the court on September

1, 2006. 

Wilful violation of a court order, including a 

protective order, may be sanctionable under the court’s inherent

power. Chambers v NASCO, Inc, 501 US 32, 43 (1991). The exclusion

of evidence is one such sanction. See Unigard Security Ins Co v

Lakewood Eng & Mfg Corp, 982 F2d 363, 368 (9th Cir 1992). Because

of the severe impact of such a sanction, it must be exercised with

restraint. Hence, “if there is a reasonable probability that a

lesser sanction will have the desired effect, the court must try

the less restrictive measure first.” Natural Gas Pipeline Co of

Case 3:05-cv-00234-VRW Document 143 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

America v Energy Gathering, Inc, 86 F3d 464, 467 (5th Cir 1996). 

Absolving defendants of their duty to produce the

grievances under the court’s order is not an appropriate remedy. 

First, because the grievances have not yet been produced, the court

cannot assess the effect denying this discovery to plaintiffs would

impose. Hence, the court is unable to determine whether

defendants’ proposed sanction would exceed the punishment necessary

to ensure such abuses are not repeated. See Chambers, 501 US at

56-57. Second, the court’s order of September 1, 2006, resolved a

longstanding discovery dispute that consumed exceptional resources

of both the parties and the court; for the sake of judicial

economy, the court should not disturb this difficult compromise. 

Accordingly, defendants’ request for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Further, the court ORDERS

defendants to produce the requested discovery pursuant to the

court’s order on or before October 9, 2006. If the discovery

yields new evidence that would aid the court in deciding the

motions presently under submission, plaintiffs shall submit the

findings in a letter brief not to exceed ten pages on or before

October 19, 2006. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-00234-VRW Document 143 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Regarding plaintiffs’ alleged violation of the court’s

protective order, the court invites defendants to serve and file a

motion for such relief as may be appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00234-VRW Document 143 Filed 10/02/06 Page 4 of 4