Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00958/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00958-15/pdf.json

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

---

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

RONALD LEMAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JILL BROWN, MAXENE PAYTON, and DOES

2 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-00958 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS

Plaintiff Ronald Lemas has filed a letter brief requesting that the Court: (1) compel defendants

and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to respond to plaintiff’s

discovery requests and subpoenas; (2) extend discovery for plaintiff by an additional 60 days; and (3)

consider whether monetary sanctions are warranted. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART

and DENIES IN PART plaintiff’s requests. The Court notes that it has every intention of deciding this

case on the merits, and is committed to seeing that plaintiff has access to the discovery necessary to try

his case. If defendant Jill Brown no longer has access to certain information because she no longer

works at San Quentin, then the information plaintiff needs must be discovered through interrogatories

on other defendants or through subpoenas served on the CDCR or other appropriate entities. The Court

does not agree with plaintiff that he may serve interrogatories on defendants’ attorneys, rather than on

defendants themselves. In order to facilitate this discovery, the Court orders as follows: 

1. With respect to plaintiff’s interrogatories to Defendant Brown, et al: Defendants shall respond

substantively within 30 days of this Order to plaintiff’s Interrogatories (Set Three) propounded and

Case 3:07-cv-00958-SI Document 95 Filed 05/20/08 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

served on February 12, 2008. 

2. With respect to plaintiff’s interrogatories to Defendant Payton: Defendants shall respond

substantively within 30 days of this Order to interrogatories Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 21, 22, and 23 of

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Defendant M. Payton propounded and served on April 9, 2008.

3. With respect to plaintiff’s requests for the identification of witnesses: Defendants shall, either in

response to plaintiff’s written discovery, or separately, within 30 days of this Order, produce to plaintiff

a complete list of witnesses who saw or heard any part of the incident (including plaintiff’s escort, his

fall, the aftermath, his movement out of Donner Unit, his treatment in the infirmary, and his

transportation off-site to Marin General Hospital), including the name, title and rank (if applicable), and

contact information for each witness, along with a brief description of what the witness saw and/or

heard. If this information is not accessible by any named defendant, then plaintiff may file a subpoena

on CDCR in order to discover this information.

4. With respect to expert discovery: The deadline for designation of experts shall be continued from

April 25, 2008 to July 11, 2008, and the deadline for designation of rebuttal experts shall be continued

from May 5, 2008 to July 25, 2008. The deadline for completion of expert discovery shall be continued

the corresponding period, from June 6, 2008 to August 22, 2008. 

5. With respect to plaintiff’s request to continue discovery and the effect on other dates: Plaintiff’s

discovery cutoff deadline is continued for 60 days from the date of this Order to allow plaintiff, and

plaintiff alone, to conduct further oral and written discovery. Plaintiff shall be entitled to take up to ten

additional depositions, not counting the depositions previously noticed and listed in No. 6, below.

The dispositive motions hearing date for both parties is continued for the same period of 60 days

from August 15, 2008 until October 14, 2008. All motions shall be filed and served in accordance with

the federal and local civil rules.

The trial date of November 24, 2008 is preserved.

Case 3:07-cv-00958-SI Document 95 Filed 05/20/08 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

6. With respect to plaintiff’s request to complete discovery which was already noticed before the

discovery cutoff date: Plaintiff shall be entitled to complete the discovery which plaintiff has already

noticed and to which defendants do not object – to wit, the depositions of Correctional Officers D.

Carter, J. Burnaugh, M. Fregoso, R. Peterson, and Nurse Hayes, LVN, and an inspection and

photographing inside Donner Unit where the incident occurred.

7. With respect to plaintiff’s request to propound written discovery on escorting officer Donald Cecil:

Plaintiff shall be entitled to propound one set each of interrogatories, requests for production, and

requests for admission on Donald Cecil.

8. With respect to the redacted Ad-Seg (“Isolation”) log which the CDCR produced on April 8, 2008,

defendants and/or the CDCR shall inform plaintiff with 7 days of this order who made the entry in this

log pertaining to plaintiff. Plaintiff shall then be entitled to follow up with written and/or oral discovery

to ascertain what, if anything, the author witnessed or knows about this incident.

9. With respect to any records pertaining to plaintiff’s medical care at San Quentin prison generated

on the date of his injury, April 18, 2005, defendants are ordered to identify and make available for

deposition a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) “person most knowledgeable” witness concerning

whether such records were generated, if not, why not, and if so, what has become of them, including

their complete chain of custody. If such records exist, defendants are ordered to produce them to

plaintiff within 7 days of this Order.

10. With respect to the Post Orders for Donner Unit on April 18, 2005, which plaintiff subpoenaed from

the CDCR (Subpoena No. 7), the CDCR is ordered to produce the requested documents to plaintiff

subject to a non-dissemination protective order, which the CDCR is directed to draft and submit to

plaintiff within 14 days of this Order. CDCR may redact those portions of the Post Orders that both

raise safety and security concerns and that do not relate to the identity of officers who may have

witnessed the incident in question, the likely physical location of witnesses to the incident, or the duties

Case 3:07-cv-00958-SI Document 95 Filed 05/20/08 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

of witnesses to the incident. In the alternative, CDCR may show cause to this Court within 14 days of

this Order why a protective order would not be sufficient to allay the CDCR’s concerns.

11. With respect to plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against the California Attorney General’s

Office and/or defendants, the Court finds that sanctions are not appropriate at this time. However, if

defendants and the CDCR do not fully comply with this Order and fully cooperate with plaintiff during

future discovery, the Court notes that monetary sanctions may be appropriate, and will entertain such

a motion at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00958-SI Document 95 Filed 05/20/08 Page 4 of 4