Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003-43/pdf.json

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF NUNC PRO 

TUNC TO NOVEMBER 7, 2014, AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

CONTEMPT ORDER AGAINST DR. 

BEARD

(Docs. 151, 155, and 160)

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Darren Harris (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 on January 3, 2005. This 

action is proceeding on Plaintiff=s fourth amended complaint against Defendants Olivarria, 

Williams, and Kim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Olivarria and 

Lowden for violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 87.) This action was previously scheduled 

for trial on April 21, 2015, but on September 25, 2014, based Defendant Kim’s deployment to 

Afghanistan, the Court vacated the trial date and stayed the case pursuant to 50 App. U.S.C. § 

522(b), Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003. (Doc. 150.) Pursuant to the stay order,

Defendants Olivarria, Williams, Lowden, and Kim (“Defendants”) are required to file a status 

report on or before June 1, 2015. 

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 166 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 7
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 October 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a civil contempt order against thirdparty California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Jeffrey Beard, Ph.D., 

based on Dr. Beard’s failure to comply with the subpoena duces tecum served pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 45. (Doc. 151.) On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a supplemental 

motion. (Doc. 155.) On October 24, 2014, Dr. Beard filed an opposition and on October 28, 

2014, he filed a notice of additional documents served in compliance with the subpoena.1 (Docs. 

156, 157.) Plaintiff filed a reply on November 5, 2014, and a motion seeking leave to submit 

additional briefing on November 7, 2014. (Docs. 159, 160.) Plaintiff’s motion to submit 

additional briefing is granted, nunc pro tunc to November 7, 2014, and his motions for a contempt 

order were submitted on the record without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

II. Discussion

A. Background

The discovery phase in this case is closed, with the limited exception of the subpoena 

duces tecum served on Dr. Beard. The Court addressed the issue in detail in an order filed on July 

9, 2014, and it stated, “[G]iven the confusion interjected into these proceedings by virtue of 

Plaintiff’s receipt of a non-court authorized subpoena duces tecum and his apparent misimpression 

that the parties had extended the discovery deadline by agreement, justice may require a limited 

extension of the discovery deadline to permit Plaintiff to obtain a court-authorized subpoena duces 

tecum.” (Doc. 144, Order, 5:6-10.) In an order filed on July 23, 2014, following receipt of 

Plaintiff’s list of documents he was seeking from Dr. Beard, the Court determined that it was in 

the interest of justice to authorize the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum commanding the 

production of two categories of documents, and it placed the parties on notice in accordance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(4). (Doc. 147, Order, 2:3-11.) 

On August 15, 2014, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to serve a subpoena 

commanding Dr. Beard to produce the following documents to Plaintiff on September 26, 2014:

(1) all documents relating to and generated by the incident on July 9, 2002, at California State 

 

1

Plaintiff’s argument that the opposition was untimely has no merit. (Doc. 159, court record p. 5, ¶8.) The opposition 

was filed on the twenty-first day. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). 

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 166 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 7
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

Prison-Corcoran, B Facility Kitchen, in which Darren Harris, J-12467, was (a) injured by the 

liquid “powerwash” soap he was cleaning with and (b) subsequently charged with refusal to work, 

including but not limited to incident reports, investigatory reports, witness statements, 

memoranda, Harris’s CDCR 602 inmate appeals, CDCR 115 Rules Violation Reports, worker’s 

compensation documents, documentation of chemical exposure, and medical records; and (2) all 

institutional safety training logs or other documents relating to training received by prison staff 

members and defendants (a) Aleesa D. Williams, (b) Rhonda Lowden, (c) Julian Kim, M.D., and 

(d) Kenneth A. Olivarria which relate to training they received or should have received as 

employees in or supervisors over the kitchen(s) at California State Prison-Corcoran, for the twoyear period immediately preceding July 9, 2002. (Docs. 148, 149.) Service was effected on 

August 19, 2014. (Doc. 149.)

On October 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a civil contempt order against Dr. 

Beard for failing to comply with the subpoena duces tecum. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Beard’s 

failure to produce any documents in compliance with the subpoena prejudiced him by depriving 

him of documents he needs to prepare for trial. In his supplemental motion filed on October 22, 

2014, Plaintiff, having by then received some documents, argues that the response was incomplete 

and otherwise deficient.

On October 24, 2014, Dr. Beard filed an opposition stating that pursuant to his authority to 

require records custodians to produce the documents, the subpoena was directed to records 

custodians at the institutions where the responsive records were kept: California State PrisonCorcoran and California Men’s Colony. Dr. Beard represents that on or around September 19, 

2014, Mary Kimbrell, the Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison-Corcoran, produced a 

worker’s compensation claim summary responsive to request 1 and a training log for Defendant 

Olivarria responsive to request 2. Ms. Kimbrell did not find any other responsive documents. H. 

Cervantez, the Litigation Coordinator at California Men’s Colony, located only one responsive 

document, a State Compensation Insurance Fund letter. In addition, Mr. Cervantez requested 

Plaintiff’s medical records from CDCR archives in Sacramento, which Dr. Beard states will be 

sent to Plaintiff once they are retrieved.

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 166 Filed 04/08/15 Page 3 of 7
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

On October 28, 2014, Dr. Beard filed a notice stating that thirty-four additional documents 

were located and sent to counsel for Dr. Beard and Defendants, who forwarded them to Plaintiff.

In reply, Plaintiff contends that Dr. Beard failed to fully comply with the subpoena because 

he failed to produce all of the documents sought by Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff takes issue 

with Ms. Kimbrell’s production of documents via regular mail rather than legal mail, which 

resulted in staff at the prison opening his mail. Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Kimbrell intentionally 

sent the documents by regular mail to alert prison staff of his pending lawsuit, which may result in 

retaliatory harassment toward him. Plaintiff is also dissatisfied with the response to the subpoena 

because the documents produced were previously produced by Defendants, and the “training log”

was not a “log” but a list of videotapes Defendant Olivarria watched. In his supplemental brief, 

Plaintiff contends that the thirty-four documents he received from counsel were documents he

submitted in support of his complaint filed on January 3, 2005.

B. No Basis for Contempt Proceedings

1. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(1)(D), a subpoena commanding the 

production of documents requires the responding party to permit inspection or copying of the 

materials. Following service of a subpoena duces tecum, the responding party may serve 

objections “before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is 

served,” and if an objection is made, the serving party may move for an order compelling 

production or inspection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B). The responding party may be held in 

contempt for failing to obey the subpoena without adequate excuse. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g); 

Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, 708 F.2d 492, 494 (9th Cir. 1983).

Sanctions for civil contempt may be imposed to coerce obedience to a court order or to 

compensate a party for injuries resulting from the contemptuous behavior, or both. General 

Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986) (quotations marks and 

citations marks omitted). “[T]here is no good faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a 

court order[,] [b]ut a person should not be held in contempt if his action appears to be based on a 

good faith and reasonable interpretation of the court’s order.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette 

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 166 Filed 04/08/15 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations and internal quotations 

omitted); accord Armstrong v. Brown, 939 F.Supp.2d. 1012, 1018-19 (N.D.Cal. 2013). Thus, Dr. 

Beard’s motivation and the steps he took to comply are relevant to Plaintiff’s motion for a 

contempt order. Critically, “[s]ubstantial compliance with the court order is a defense to civil 

contempt, and is not vitiated by a few technical violations where every reasonable effort has been 

made to comply.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d at 695 

(citation and internal quotations omitted); accord Armstrong, 939 F.Supp.2d. at 1018-19.

2. Findings

a. Production of Records by Mail

Plaintiff’s assertion that Ms. Kimbrell intentionally committed misconduct by mailing him 

the responsive documents without designating them as “legal mail” in order to facilitate 

harassment against him is entirely unsupported. Plaintiff is incorrect that the documents were 

entitled, in this action, to some sort of special protection prohibiting the prison from opening the 

incoming envelope; filings in this case are a matter of public record and Plaintiff was not engaged 

in corresponding with his own attorney, a situation in which there are legitimate confidentiality 

concerns. See Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 909-12 (9th Cir. 2014) (addressing prison’s 

practice of reading inmate’s confidential mail to his attorney). To the extent prison regulations 

provide Plaintiff with broader protection than he enjoys under federal law, it is of no concern in 

this case. Ms. Kimbrell mailed two documents, one of which pertains to Defendant Olivarria and

therefore provides no basis for Plaintiff to advance any privacy claim. The second document is 

Plaintiff’s state compensation claim form regarding chemical burns, which contains minimal 

information but regardless, to the extent Plaintiff is suggesting some sort of privacy interest

violation, that interest was waived by filing this suit for injuries sustained by chemical burns and 

by seeking service of the subpoena commanding document production. See e.g., Anderson v. 

Clawson, No. C 13-0307 LHK (PR), 2014 WL 3725856, at *2 (N.D.Cal. 2014) (plaintiff not 

entitled to quash subpoena where he waived privacy right in his medical records by placing his 

medical condition at issue in lawsuit). Any intimation that Plaintiff was somehow harmed by the 

production of the two documents, at his own initiation, is untenable. Finally, it is also wholly

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 166 Filed 04/08/15 Page 5 of 7
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

6

immaterial – for purposes of this case and under federal law - that Ms. Kimbrell failed to put her 

name on the envelope, arguably, per Plaintiff, a prison regulation violation. 

b. Substantive Production

Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the substantive document response is also baseless. The 

subpoena commanded the production of any documents responsive to requests 1 and 2, and Dr. 

Beard responded by producing, through Ms. Kimbrell and H. Cervantez, the documents he 

represents were responsive. Plaintiff mischaracterizes Ms. Kimbrell’s response as a refusal to 

produce documents but she attested under penalty of perjury that no other responsive documents 

exist, which is a distinction with a difference. (Doc. 156-1, Def. Opp., p. 5.) While Plaintiff 

advances an argument relating to the issue of spoliation, there is no evidence that additional 

responsive documents exist or that Dr. Beard, a non-party who was not appointed to his position 

until long after the events at issue occurred and the lawsuit was filed and served, was responsible 

for the improper destruction of evidence.

2,3

 Plaintiff’s speculative arguments do not supplant the 

need to produce evidence of any alleged misconduct. To the extent Plaintiff is skeptical because 

Ms. Kimbrell produced fewer documents than Defendants did during discovery or than Plaintiff 

himself possesses, Defendants were subject to broader discovery requests, as Dr. Beard asserts in 

his opposition, and Plaintiff was subsequently served with additional medical records that were 

maintained in archives. The argument that there should be more is insufficient to demonstrate that 

Dr. Beard or the staff to whom he delegated the task of responding withheld documents from 

Plaintiff.

Finally, the argument that production was deficient because Plaintiff is already in 

possession of some of the documents is entirely unavailing, and the argument that Plaintiff 

 

2 The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Dr. Beard was appointed as Secretary in 2012, a fact which is 

available on CDCR’s public website. Fed. R. Evid. 201; Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 

(9th Cir. 2010).

3

“Parties to a civil action in federal court are under a duty to preserve evidence that they know is relevant or 

reasonably could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Young v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-03579-JF/PVT, 

2010 WL 3564847, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (citing Leon v. IDX Systems, Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 

2006)) (emphasis added). “This obligation, backed by the court’s inherent power to impose sanctions for the 

destruction of such evidence, is sufficient in most cases to secure the preservation of relevant evidence.” Young, 2010 

WL 3564847, at *1. 

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 166 Filed 04/08/15 Page 6 of 7
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

7

received a summary of videotapes viewed rather than a “log” is unpersuasive. To be subject to 

production, the documents must actually exist and under the circumstances, Plaintiff is in no 

position to quarrel with either the quantity or the quality of the documents produced or the 

methods in which prison staff are trained. As to the latter issue, production of a videotape viewing 

log indicates that Defendant Olivarria received some training through instructional videotapes, a 

form of training which is neither novel nor a cause for suspicion.

c. Conclusion

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections to Dr. Beard’s substantive response lack merit, 

and while compliance appears to have been technically late from a procedural standpoint because 

Ms. Kimbrell sent documents through the mail and other documents had to be retrieved from 

archives, the untimeliness was not significant and it did not cause Plaintiff any discernible actual 

prejudice. Furthermore, the record is devoid of any evidence that the tardiness was attributable to 

lack of due diligence, willful dilatory conduct, etc. Under the circumstances, holding Dr. Beard in 

civil contempt for a technical procedural violation despite his substantial compliance with the 

subpoena cannot be justified under the law. In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust 

Litig., 10 F.3d at 695; Armstrong, 939 F.Supp.2d. at 1018-19. 

III. Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion leave to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED, nunc pro 

tunc to November 7, 2014, and Plaintiff’s motions for a contempt order against Dr. Beard, filed on 

October 2, 2014, and October 22, 2014, are DENIED.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

4 Nor is Plaintiff entitled to sanctions under the Court’s inherent authority, a form of relief specified in his 

supplemental motion. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767, 100 S.Ct. 2455 (1980); In re Lehtinen, 564 

F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2009); Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001); Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 

885 F.2d 1473, 1478-80 (9th Cir. 1989). (Doc. 155, 2nd Motion, p. 17.)

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 166 Filed 04/08/15 Page 7 of 7