Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02878/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02878-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

C-04-2878 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUKE K. BOLTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 04-2878 JSW (JL)

Discovery Order

(Denying Docket # 50, 73)

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred to this Court by the District Court (Hon.

Jeffrey S. White) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. In its Report and

Recommendation filed under seal at Docket # 77, and adopted by Judge White at Docket #

83, this Court noted: “Bolter’s counsel has separately requested depositions of two of the

officers who conducted these interviews and has submitted interrogatories. The

government and CDC have interposed objections. The Court has those matters under

submission and will take them up again at the conclusion of the hearing on security

concerns.

In a separate letter dated July 29, 2005, counsel for Bolter submitted a discovery

dispute outlining its efforts to locate the FBI agents who conducted the interviews and

prepared the FBI 203's reports at issue in this matter.

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 99 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 8
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

C-04-2878 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 8

The parties and the California Department of Corrections (“CDC”) entered into a

stipulated protective order at Docket # 86, obviating the need for a hearing on the security

issues. Bolter’s discovery motion came on for hearing before this court of January 25,

2006. Anne M. Rudolph appeared for Mr. Bolter and Owen Martikan appeared for the

United States. This Court has amended the protective order under separate caption.

Interrogatories: Bolter seeks addresses of retired agents to take depositions

In Set Three of his Interrogatories, Bolter asks the Government to provide the

addresses of two retired FBI agents, Brent Miller and Stanley L. Walker. Bolter seeks the

addresses to serve deposition subpoenas but agrees to withdraw his request if the

Government agrees to produce them for deposition. The government objects.

Bolter asserts that Walker and Miller have information concerning who conducted

the investigation, who was involved in the preparation of the 302 reports, what the CDC’s

involvement was, and who reviewed or was provided copies of the 302 reports. Bolter

contends the depositions of Walker and Miller are necessary to “complete the discovery

process.” 

The Government argues this Court should deny Bolter’s motion for four reasons:

First, neither of the retired agents is within the subpoena power of this Court, since

they both live out of state. The FBI contends that this jurisdictional issue moots the entire

deposition controversy at the outset.

Bolter does not address this contention.

Second, the home address and telephone numbers of the retired FBI agents are not

“a matter of public record,” as Bolter asserts. This information is covered by the Privacy

Act, and cannot be disclosed without a court order. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). The

Government cites U.S. Department of Defense v Federal Labor Relations Authority, 510

U.S. 487, 494 (1994) for the proposition that civil service employees’ home addresses

qualify as “records” under the Privacy Act provision of the Freedom of Information Act

(“FOIA”). The Government also relies Diamond v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 532

F.Supp. 216, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); judgment aff’d at 707 F.2d 75 (2nd Cir. 1983); cert den.

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 99 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 8
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

C-04-2878 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 8

at 465 U.S. 1004 (1984) in which the district court upheld the FBI’s refusal to release the

names and addresses of FBI agents and clerical personnel.

Bolter disputes the Government’s characterization of the holding in DOD v. FLRA, in

which the Supreme Court concluded that the relevant inquiry is whether disclosure of the

information would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The

Court’s real reason for denying the information was there was nothing that would advance

public understanding of the operations or activities of the government within the meaning of

the Freedom of Information Act. 

Bolter distinguishes his case, contending that the FBI agents are necessary

witnesses to the operations and activities of the FBI. Bolter also distinguishes the Diamond

case, arising from a FOIA request by a university professor to conduct research about FBI

activities during the McCarthy era. The court denied his request and reasoned that

disclosure of the names of FBI agents, clerical personnel and other governmental and nongovernmental employees should not be permitted because the professor had failed to

identify any reason why this information was important to his research. Id. at 224.

Third, the Government argues the depositions are unnecessary. The FBI 302 forms

themselves state who prepared them, and who was present during the interviews. CDC

involvement is also shown on the face of each form. The Government says it provided this

information in other documents “some time ago.” The Government also contends any

information Bolter seeks from the retired agents is irrelevant to whether the FBI legitimately

asserted law enforcement privileges with respect to information redacted from the FBI 302

forms. 

Bolter contends this discovery is necessary to complete the discovery process,

despite the Government’s prior revelations.

Fourth, the Government reiterates its position that any discovery is inappropriate in

this Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) proceeding. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,

470 U.S. 729, 743 (1985) (“The focal point for judicial review should be the administrative

record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court.”)

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 99 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 8
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

C-04-2878 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 4 of 8

The Government acknowledges an exception, where the agency has acted in bad faith, but

denies such conduct in this case, since the FBI showed Bolter’s counsel all the unredacted

FBI documents early on. Finally, the Government relies on Pollard v. FBI, 705 F.2d 1151,

1154 (9th Cir. 1983) in which the Ninth Circuit held that a district court did not abuse its

discretion by denying a plaintiff’s attempts to take depositions of FBI agents, when to do so

risked revealing the same information that the FBI claimed was privileged. The Government

asserts the documents submitted to this Court constitute a sufficient record for judicial

review.

Bolter points out that this case involves not only review under the APA, but also

constitutional claims. Thus discovery is not precluded.

(Letter briefs at Docket #s 50 and 73)

Analysis

This Court rejects the Government’s contention that the agents are outside the

subpoena power of this Court as a basis for denying Bolter’s motion to obtain their

addresses from the Government. There is no doubt that the Government is subject to this

Court’s jurisdiction. In addition, Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that a

deposition subpoena “shall issue from the court for the district designated by the notice of

deposition as the district in which the deposition is to be taken.” (FRCP 45(a)(2)). 

Accordingly, if Bolter obtains the agents’ addresses, he may then request that the court for

the district or districts where the depositions are to be taken issue the subpoenas. 

This Court also rejects the Government’s contention that the Privacy Act precludes

disclosure of the agents’ addresses. This statute provides in part: "No agency shall disclose

any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to

any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the 1012

prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the

record would be ... (2) required under section 552 of this title [FOIA]." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(2)

(1988 ed. and Supp. IV).

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 99 Filed 03/09/06 Page 4 of 8
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

C-04-2878 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 5 of 8

In DOD v FLRA, the Supreme Court found that employee addresses sought by the

unions were "records" covered by the broad terms of the Privacy Act. Therefore, unless the

FOIA provisions of the Privacy Act would require release of the addresses, their disclosure

was "prohibited by law," and the agencies may not reveal them to the unions. U.S. Dept. of

Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority 510 U.S. 487, 493-494 (1994). The Privacy

Act precludes release of such information only if there is no court order for its release. This

is similar to other statutes, for example California Penal Code §832.7 which forbids

disclosure of police personnel records without court order. Courts order release of such

records where appropriate, for example where a plaintiff, as in this case, alleges violation of

rights under the Constitution.

In the case at bar, this Court has reviewed in camera all the 302's at issue, and

ordered disclosure of witness information to Bolter’s counsel. Nothing has been ordered to

be disclosed to “the public,” and the stipulated protective order would preserve the privacy

of the retired FBI agents, if their addresses were provided to Bolter’s counsel. Accordingly,

the Privacy Act does not provide a basis for denying Bolter’s motion to compel disclosure of

the retired agents’ addresses.

However, resolution of the privacy issue does not end this matter. The Court agrees

with the government’s content that this discovery is unnecessary. The 302's themselves

provide all the information Bolter purportedly seeks in this lawsuit. Bolter’s counsel has the

burden to show relevance of discovery under FRCP 26. Counsel must demonstrate how

evidence relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses could reasonably be expected from

the agents’ depositions.

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 99 Filed 03/09/06 Page 5 of 8
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

C-04-2878 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 6 of 8

Bolter seeks to ask questions of the agents concerning who conducted the

investigation, who was involved in the preparation of the 302 reports, what the CDC’s

involvement was, who else was involved in the investigation or preparation of the reports,

and who reviewed or was provided copies of the 302 reports. These questions are not

directed to the content of the documents. While this inquiry could lead to discovery of

admissible evidence in the state criminal proceeding -- for example, the identity of

additional witnesses, who either participated in the interviews or received copies of 302's, it

is beyond the scope of this action, which merely seeks the reports themselves. 

Counsel for Bolter misconstrues Judge Whites’ comment that discovery in this

matter is “wide open.” The fundamental nature of this proceeding does not expand beyond

the relief requested because of the form of the action filed. Although this action is civil in

form, the underlying case is criminal by nature. Counsel seeks civil remedies in aid of Mr.

Bolter’s Constitutional rights in the state court criminal proceeding. Depositions in criminal

proceedings are not favored except to obtain and preserve otherwise unavailable

testimony. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 requires “exceptional circumstances” in

order to justify depositions. 

The content of the statements and the persons present have been revealed to Mr.

Bolter. The stated purposes of further inquiry of the recording agents is marginal, and no

exceptional circumstances are presented. Counsel’s stated purpose of merely completing

the discovery process is an insufficient basis for authorizing further discovery.

It is important to note that the state court proceedings have been stayed, pending

resolution of this action. It is now time to return this matter to state court for final

disposition.

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 99 Filed 03/09/06 Page 6 of 8
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

C-04-2878 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 7 of 8

Conclusion and Order

Bolter’s request to take the depositions of Walker and Miller, or to obtain their

addresses in order to subpoena them for the purpose of taking their depositions, is denied. 

Any such discovery in the context of this action is unnecessary and will not shed light on

whether or not additional documents should be furnished to Bolter’s counsel. Whether

depositions of these witnesses would be appropriate in the underlying state criminal

proceeding is not before this Court at this time.

This Court notes that such a request is highly unusual in a criminal case, and if this

were a federal criminal matter, “exceptional circumstances” must be shown under FR Crim.

P. 15. No such showing has been made.

REPORT and RECOMMENDATION

This Court has reviewed the original complaint in this matter, has conducted an in

camera review of all of the documents in question, and has previously ordered disclosure of

certain documents to Bolter’s counsel, subject to a stipulated protective order. This Court

has further ordered that such documents may be used at Bolter’s trial in state court. 

Hence, Bolter’s counsel has succeeded in obtaining the relief requested, and no further

action by this Court is called for at this time.

Accordingly, Bolter’s complaint for writ of mandamus and affirmative injunction have

been granted as previously ordered by this Court. No other relief is neither necessary or

appropriate. The complaint is discharged, and the file is closed. This case is referred back

to the state court.

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 99 Filed 03/09/06 Page 7 of 8
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

C-04-2878 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 8 of 8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 9, 2006

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 99 Filed 03/09/06 Page 8 of 8