Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04256/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04256-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAAD ZUHAIR RABIEH,

Plaintiff,

v.

PARAGON SYSTEMS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-04256-EJD (VKD)

ORDER RE STIPULATION FOR 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY/FEDERAL PROTECTIVE 

SERVICE DOCUMENTS AND 

WITNESSES

Re: Dkt. No. 85

Plaintiff Raad Zuhair Rabieh sues for alleged civil rights violations under federal and state 

law.1 His claims are based on an April 12, 2012 incident at the Robert F. Peckham Federal 

Building, 280 South First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 (“Federal Building”) that reportedly arose 

when he attempted to leave the Federal Building through the emergency exit, rather than through 

the customary exit.

All discovery matters having been referred to the undersigned, this Court is in receipt of 

the “Stipulation between the Parties to Court Order Directing Department of Homeland Security 

and/or Federal Protective Services [sic] to Produce Certain Documents and Provide Certain 

Witnesses to Testify in a Deposition.” Dkt. No. 85. As suggested by the title of that document, 

the parties request that the Court issue an order compelling discovery from non-parties 

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and Federal Protective Service (“FPS”), a division 

within DHS. Among other things, the parties seek security footage; training manuals, employee 

 

1

The docket indicates that Judge Davila, who presides over this matter, recently dismissed Mr. 

Rabieh’s federal claims (with leave to amend only the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and did not 

reach defendants’ arguments regarding the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law 

claims. Dkt. No. 84. Mr. Rabieh has until July 2, 2018 to file an amended complaint. Id.

Case 5:16-cv-04256-EJD Document 87 Filed 06/21/18 Page 1 of 3
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

handbooks, and other policies and procedures; communication logs; records pertaining to the 

activation of any emergency exit alarm at the Federal Building on April 12, 20162; and the names 

and contact information for any visitors to the Federal Building on April 12, 2016. The parties 

also seek an order compelling FPS Officer Alvaro Lopez to testify at a deposition.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 301, often referred to as the “housekeeping statute,” the head of a 

federal agency may promulgate regulations governing the agency head’s “department, the conduct 

of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and 

preservation of its records, papers, and property.” Such regulations are generally known as Touhy

regulations and take their name from United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, in which the Supreme 

Court affirmed the validity of such regulations. 340 U.S. 462, 468, 71 S. Ct. 416, 95 L.Ed. 417 

(1951). The housekeeping statute “does not authorize withholding information from the public or 

limiting the availability of records to the public.” 5 U.S.C. § 301. In the Ninth Circuit, “Section 

301 does not create an independent privilege to withhold government information or shield federal 

employees from valid subpoenas.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 780 

(9th Cir. 1994). “Rather, district courts should apply the federal rules of discovery when deciding 

on discovery requests made against government agencies, whether or not the United States is a 

party to the underlying action.” Id.

3

The DHS has promulgated regulations governing the production of documents and

testimony. See 6 C.F.R. § 5.41, et seq. For example, DHS regulations prohibit testimony and 

production of documents by employees and former employees, unless approved by the Office of 

the General Counsel or its delegates. 6 C.F.R. § 5.44. DHS regulations also identify factors the 

department will consider in determining whether to comply with a demand or request, as well as 

procedures to be followed when the production of documents or testimony is sought. Id. §§ 5.45-

5.48.

 

2 Although the stipulation specifies the date of April 12, 2016, plaintiff’s most recent pleading 

indicates that the alleged incident occurred on April 12, 2012. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 72 at 5.

3

In interpreting Section 301, the Ninth Circuit does “not distinguish between subpoenas seeking 

testimony and documentary evidence.” Exxon Shipping Co., 34 F.3d at 777.

Case 5:16-cv-04256-EJD Document 87 Filed 06/21/18 Page 2 of 3
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

The parties’ stipulated request for a court order does not describe the efforts, if any, the 

parties have undertaken to obtain the discovery they seek of DHS or FPS using the tools provided 

in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The stipulated request also does not indicate whether the 

parties have made any efforts to comply with DHS’s regulatory procedures for the production of 

documents and testimony. In these circumstances, the Court declines to enter an order compelling 

production of documents and testimony by DHS or FPS at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2018

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04256-EJD Document 87 Filed 06/21/18 Page 3 of 3