Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05634/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05634-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 5:14-cv-05634-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

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

D.K., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RTC GROUNDS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-05634-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL

(Re: Docket No. 40)

The question before the court is straightforward: does Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 require a 

defendant to produce documents from his former employer? The answer, at least on this record is 

equally straightforward: no. 

Plaintiffs in this Section 1983 case served various document requests on Defendants 

R.T.C. Grounds and Gary Sandor.1 Plaintiffs are the estate of Dimitris Kalazakis, his parents, and 

his minor son through his duly appointed guardian ad litem.2 Kalazakis was killed by his cellmate 

at Salinas Valley State Prison, and Plaintiffs wish to hold Defendants, one the SVSP warden at the 

time of the homicide, and the other a member of the committee that determined Kalazakis’ 

housing classification, responsible.3 Grounds and Sandor have both since retired from their 

former employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.4 Among their 

 

1

See Docket No. 40 at 2.

2

See id. at 1.

3

See id.

4

See id. at 2.

Case 5:14-cv-05634-RMW Document 50 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 5:14-cv-05634-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

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

objections to Plaintiffs’ requests, Defendants argue that they do not have possession, custody or 

control of any otherwise responsive documents in the files of their former employer.5

While Rule 34 provides that a party is required to produce responsive documents within 

his “possession, custody, or control,” courts have struggled with what exactly that means.6 Within 

the Ninth Circuit, trial courts follow the “legal right” standard: “[c]ontrol must be firmly placed in 

reality, and the court examines whether there is actual, not theoretical control. Decisions within 

the Ninth Circuit have noted the importance of a legal right to access documents created by 

statute, affiliation or employment.”7 

Against these standards, Plaintiffs’ demand for documents from Defendants’ former 

employer falls flat. In particular, Plaintiffs fail to show that Grounds and Sandor have the 

authority to compel the CDCR or any of its facilities to produce the documents they request. At 

the time their responses were served, Grounds and Sandor were retired from CDCR.8 Plaintiffs 

were aware that Sandor was retired when they served the discovery in November 2015, because

Plaintiffs’ counsel had taken Sandor’s deposition on October 14, 2015 in another case. There, he 

explained in detail the various positions he held with CDCR through April 2014, including his 

limited work at California State Prison-Corcoran.

9

Similarly, Grounds retired from SVSP in 2014, 

and at the time he served his responses on December 21, 2015, he was retired. Grounds recently 

accepted a limited appointment as a Retired Annuitant-Chief Deputy Warden at the California 

Institution for Men. As a retired annuitant, he is akin to an independent contractor, hired for a 

 

5

See id.

6

See, e.g., Goodman v. Praxair Servcs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 514 (D. Md. 2009) (“What is 

meant by [Rule 34] ‘control’ . . . has yet to be fully defined.”) (Grimm, J.). 

7

Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, Case No. C07-04330 RMW (HRL), 2008 WL 4786621, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. Oct. 30, 2008). 

8

See Docket Nos. 41-1, Docket No. 41-2.

9

See Docket No. 41-3.

Case 5:14-cv-05634-RMW Document 50 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 5:14-cv-05634-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

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

specific purpose as stated in the Justification Memo and Duty Statement submitted to the court.

10

 

His appointment is limited to CIM and is expected to end in June 2016.11 But Grounds’ current 

limited role at CIM does not change the analysis here, because as a contractor, he is not a CDCR 

employee and does not have the legal right to demand production of the requested documents.12

Plaintiffs point to Ochotorena v. Adams,

13 Bovarie v. Schwarzenegger, et al.,14 Woodall v.

California,

15 Mitchell v. Adams16 and Allen v. Woodford,17 but those cases are factually inapposite: 

they involve current, not former, employees. None of the cases Plaintiffs rely on stand for the 

proposition that former CDCR employees have actual or constructive possession, custody or 

control of documents in the actual possession of their former employer. 

Courts have routinely held that former employees do not have the requisite control. In 

Bryant v. Armstrong,

18 the district court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Defendant 

“Armstrong has control over Calipatria’s law library scheduling policies” because “she and the 

other Defendants are represented by the Attorney General’s Office, and the other Defendants are 

currently employed by CDCR.”19 The court noted that the plaintiff’s argument “would be stronger 

 

10 See Docket No. 41-4.

11 See id.

12 Cf. Guthrey v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., Case No. 1:10–cv–02177–OWW–GSA, 

2011 WL 1259835, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2011) (finding that plaintiff, a retired annuitant for 

CDCR, cannot bring claims under Government Code § 12940 “as only an individual’s employer 

may be held liable under FEHA”).

13 Case No. No. 1:05-cv-01524-LJO-DLB (PC), 2010 WL 1035774 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010).

14 Case Civil No. 08cv1661 LAB (NLS), 2011 WL 719206 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011).

15 Case No. 1:08–CV–01948–OWW–DLB PC, 2010 WL 4316953 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2010).

16 Case No. CIV S-06-2321 GEB GGH P, 2009 WL 674348 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2009).

17 Case No. CV-F-05-1104 OWW LJO, 2007 WL 309945 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007).

18 285 F.R.D. 596 (S.D. Cal. 2014).

19 Id. at 607.

Case 5:14-cv-05634-RMW Document 50 Filed 04/01/16 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 5:14-cv-05634-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

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

if the document request was directed at a Defendant who was currently employed by CDCR.”20 

The court concluded that “Armstrong cannot be compelled to produce documents from an agency 

that previously employed her when the records are not in her custody, possession, or control.”21 In 

Lopez v.Chertoff, the court found that the defendant, a former employee of the Yolo County Public 

Defender’s Office, did not have possession, custody, or control of documents “held by his former 

employer, nor [did] he have the present ability to legally demand such documents.” 22 And the 

district court in Lowe v. District of Columbia stated that “[f]ormer employees for government 

agencies do not have ‘possession, custody, or control’ of documents held by their former 

employers.” 23 

Plaintiffs separately rely on Bovarie and Woodall for the proposition that individuals 

represented by the Office of the Attorney General have control over the requested documents. In 

both cases, the court concluded that by virtue of their representation and continued employment 

with CDCR, the defendants had control of the requested documents, and required the defendants 

to provide factual support if they continued to assert that they did not have control of the 

documents. But here, Plaintiffs cited no regulation, code or other authority that gives the Office of 

the Attorney General unfettered access to the documents requested in the production requests 

directed at Grounds and Sandor.

 

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 Case No. CV 07–1566–LEW, 2009 WL 1575214, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2009).

23 250 F.R.D. 36, 38 (D.D.C. 2008); see also, McCurdy v. Johnson, Case No. 2:08–cv–01767–

JAD–PAL, 2013 WL 4506432, at *3 (D. Nev. 2013) (“Defendant cannot be compelled to produce 

documents from an agency that previously employed him when the records are not in his 

possession, custody, or control.”).

Case 5:14-cv-05634-RMW Document 50 Filed 04/01/16 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 5:14-cv-05634-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

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

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-05634-RMW Document 50 Filed 04/01/16 Page 5 of 5