Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-622/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK JFM P

vs.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On August 7, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Statement Re Discovery Dispute on

Production of Internal Affairs Files Related to Use of Force (“Joint Statement”). (ECF No.

4732.) The Joint Statement reflects that plaintiffs seek to compel production of Internal Affairs

(“IA”) files related to CDCR use of force incidents against class members in connection with

plaintiffs’ May 29, 2013 motion concerning use of force and disciplinary measures (“use of force

motion”) (ECF No. 4638), and defendants seek quash or modify the subpoena by which plaintiffs

seek production of the information. 

This discovery dispute arises from statements made in a declaration by John Day,

Chief of Headquarters Operations for CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) filed by

defendants in opposition to plaintiffs’ use of force motion. (ECF No. 4705.) In relevant part,

Mr. Day avers in his declaration that

1

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4738 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 4
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

CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs conducts administrative and

criminal investigations into allegations of misconduct by CDCR

employees. These investigations include allegations of

unreasonable or unnecessary force against inmates and the use of

deadly force by employees. During 2012, hiring authorities, such

as Wardens, referred 107 cases to the Office of Internal Affairs

alleging employee misconduct related to use of force incidents.

Twenty-nine of those cases were “direct action” cases. A “direct

action” case requires no further investigation because the evidence

collected at the institutional level clearly indicates that there is a

preponderance of evidence that the misconduct occurred. Direct

action cases are referred back to the hiring authority for discipline.

Fifty-seven of the referred cases required further investigation. 

Although some of these investigations have not yet been

completed, 31 cases had at least one allegation of misconduct

sustained against an employee. In 9 of these cases, the misconduct

resulted in termination. Twenty-one cases referred in 2012 were

rejected as they identified no misconduct.

(Decl. of Day, filed July 24, 2013 (First Decl. of Day) (ECF No. 4705) at ¶ 2.) 

Plaintiffs seek production of “the IA files for use of force cases referred to IA in

2012 that involve Coleman class members, including all records of any disciplinary actions

taken.” Joint Statement (ECF No. 4732) at 1.

Defendants object to production of the files sought by plaintiffs, or a small sample

thereof, on several grounds. First, defendants contend that the files plaintiffs seek “have no

relevance” to this case, that Mr. Day “did not review or consider these files,” and that the facts

presented by Mr. Day in his declaration “responded to Plaintiff’s false allegation in their motion

that CDCR does not conduct investigations or impose discipline on employees.” Id. at 2. With

their opposition, defendants present another declaration from Mr. Day in which he states that he

obtained the information reflected in his first declaration from his office’s case management

system. (Decl. of Day filed Aug. 7, 2013 (Second Decl. of Day) (ECF No. 4733) at 2.) 

Defendants also contend that plaintiffs improperly relied on Rule 45 to seek the information,

rather than Rule 34; that the request for production is unreasonable and burdensome and that it

would “take several weeks or months to identify, review, and redact those files”; and that the

documents which plaintiffs seek also contain privileged information. (Id. at 3.)

2

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4738 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 4
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

Pursuant to the assigned District Judges’ August 1, 2013 order, the time for

completing “discovery” in this matter has been extended to August 23, 2013. (Order filed Aug.

1, 2013 (ECF No. 4731) at 2, 3.) As this court understands the August 1, 2013 order, the

discovery referred to therein was the depositions of defendants’ witnesses. (See id. at 2; Order

filed July 10, 2013 (ECF No. 4687) at 1) (“Plaintiffs may take depositions of defendants’

witnesses in advance of filing their reply briefs.”). Of course, notices of depositions may

properly include document production requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. However, at this late

stage of the proceedings it appears clear that any such request for production in connection with a

deposition should be limited to documents relied on by the defense witness in preparing his or

her declaration or testimony. Mr. Day has averred that he did not “review or consider” any of the

files with respect to the 107 cases involving use of force incidents which were referred to the

Office of Internal Affairs and mentioned in his declaration filed in this action. (Second Decl. of

Day (ECF No. 4733) at ¶ 3.) Instead, he merely relied on a case management system report and 

is willing to produce that report at his deposition. (Id.) Defendants have also presented some

evidence that it could take “several days or weeks to copy and redact each investigation packet.”

(Second Decl. of Day (ECF No. 4733) at ¶ 4.) Finally, defendants have represented that

production of the files sought by plaintiffs could be prejudicial because many of those files

involve OIA investigations that have not yet been completed. (Id. at ¶ 5.) 

Defendants represent to the court that the relevant part of Mr. Day’s declaration in

opposition to plaintiffs’ motion is offered only to respond plaintiffs’ specific allegation that

“CDCR does not conduct investigations or impose discipline on employees.” (Joint Statement

(ECF No. 4732) at 2.) The court notes that elsewhere in his first declaration, Mr. Day makes

statements concerning the use of force review processes within the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), including at the OIA. (See First Decl. of Day at ¶¶ 5-

16.) However, the court also notes that nowhere in his declaration does he make any

representations concerning whether those use of force review processes were followed in any of

3

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4738 Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 4
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

the 107 cases involving use of force incidents which were referred to the OIA and mentioned in

his first declaration. Indeed, given the fact that he did not review the files relating to those 107

cases it appears clear that he would have no basis upon which to make such a representations. 

Finally, defendants apparently do not intend that Mr. Day’s declaration be relied upon for the

purpose of claiming that CDCR’s use of force review processes were followed in any of the 107

cases referred to the OIA . 

1

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ August 7, 2013 motion to compel is denied; and

2. Defendants’ August 7, 2013 motion to quash is granted. 

DATED: August 9, 2013.

12

uofdisc.o2a

 

 If defendants somehow wished to rely on the Day declaration for this purpose, they 1

should not be allowed to do so without producing the files and affording plaintiffs the

opportunity to test that evidence. Such production, were it required, could be accomplished

pursuant to an appropriate protective order that would, inter alia, shield all personal information

of any CDCR staff member referred to in any file. However, for the reasons set forth above, and

in light of the short period of time remaining prior to the scheduled hearing, it does not appear

that this is necessary.

4

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4738 Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 4