Couch v. State of California, et al

Filing 241

Joint STIPULATION and ORDER Regarding Authenticity, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/16/2012. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

BROOKS M. BEARD (CA Bar No. 181271)
Email: [e-mail]
DANIEL A. ZLATNIK (CA Bar No. 259690)
Email: [e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
EDWARD J. CADEN (CA Bar No. 166922)
Email: [e-mail]
LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD J. CADEN
9245 Laguna Springs Drive, Suite 200
Elk Grove, California 95753
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs RYAN COUCH and KENNETH
JIMENEZ

11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
RYAN COUCH and KENNETH JIMENEZ,
16
Plaintiff,
17
v.

Case No. 1:08-CV-01621-LJO-DLB
JOINT STIPULATION AND
ORDER REGARDING
AUTHENTICITY

18
19
20

TOMMY WAN, KIMBERLI BONCORE, and
RALPH DIAZ,
Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: AUTHENTICITY
CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01621-LJO-DLB
sf-3109519

Judge: Hon. Dennis L. Beck

1
2

WHEREAS, Ryan Couch and Kenneth Jimenez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced

3

the above-captioned action (the “Litigation”) against on Tommy Wan, Kimberli Boncore, and

4

Ralph Diaz (collectively, “Defendants,” and together with Plaintiffs, “the Parties” and

5

individually each a “Party”), on July 7, 2008;

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WHEREAS, in the course of discovery the Parties have exchanged documents, and
Plaintiffs have sought and obtained documents from third party California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”);
WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in their mutual interest and CDCR’s
interest as a third party to avoid the significant and unnecessary burden and expense associated
with the document-by-document authentication of documents, and that stipulating to the
authenticity of documents will promote the orderly and efficient progress of the Litigation;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties as
follows:
1.

Subject to the exceptions stated below, and absent affirmative evidence

(including evidence relating to the completeness of a document, such as missing or
incomplete pages, or any conditions in the actual document or the manner in which it was
produced that brings into question whether the document was actually generated by the
relevant party or third party) that a document or thing is not what it purports to be, Plaintiffs
agrees that, for purposes of Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Plaintiffs will not
contest the authenticity of any document or thing produced by Plaintiffs in connection with
the Litigation provided that the document or thing is offered in connection with the testimony
of a witness (including for the purpose of cross-examining a witness) or in connection with a
motion for summary judgment.
2.

Subject to the exceptions stated below, and absent affirmative evidence

(including evidence relating to the completeness of a document, such as missing or
incomplete pages, or any conditions in the actual document or the manner in which it was
produced that brings into question whether the document was actually generated by the
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: AUTHENTICITY
CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01621-LJO-DLB
sf-3109519

1

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

relevant party or third party) that a document or thing is not what it purports to be,
Defendants agree that, for purposes of Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,
Defendants will not contest the authenticity of any document or thing produced by
Defendants or CDCR in connection with the Litigation provided that the document or thing is
being offered in connection with the testimony of a witness (including for the purpose of
cross-examining a witness) or in connection with a motion for summary judgment.
3.

Except as provided in Paragraph 4, the Parties’ agreements in Paragraphs 1

and 2 of this stipulation do not apply to handwritten documents or notes. If a document or
thing produced by a Party bears handwritten notes, the Parties’ agreements do not apply to
the handwritten notes portion of the document, but do apply to the remainder of the
document or thing. The Parties agree, however, that where a typed document references and
includes or attaches handwritten notes, such as notes that purport to be written by an inmate,
the included or attached notes are the notes referenced by the document.
4.

The Parties’ agreements in Paragraphs 1 and 2 apply to the following pages:

CDCR001212-1228, CDCR001254, CDCR003180-3188, CDCR002041, CDCR002585,
CDCR002598-2600, CDCR002705-2707, CDCR002749-2754, CDCR007746-7747,
CDCR007817-7821, CDCR011048-11050.
5.

The Parties’ agreements in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this stipulation do not apply

to documents and things produced after the date of this stipulation if: (1) within 15 days
following production of the document or thing, the producing Party sends written notice to
the receiving Party that it does not stipulate to the authenticity of the document or thing (with
each such document or thing identified with specificity, such as by specific beginning and
ending Bates numbers for a document) and provides a reasonable explanation for its position;
or (2) there is affirmative evidence that the document or thing is not what it purports to be.
To the extent either of the exceptions identified in this Paragraph 4 applies, the Parties agree
that, at a mutually agreed upon time prior to trial, each Party may identify to the other Party a
reasonable amount of documents and things produced after the date of this stipulation as to
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: AUTHENTICITY
CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01621-LJO-DLB
sf-3109519

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

which that Party still wishes a stipulation of authenticity. The Parties further agree that such
stipulation will not be unreasonably withheld.
6.

The Parties agree that, at a mutually agreed upon time prior to trial, each Party

may identify to the other Party a reasonable amount of documents and things produced in this
litigation by third-parties (other than CDCR) as to which that Party wishes a stipulation of
authenticity. The Parties further agree that such stipulation will not be unreasonably
withheld.
7.

This stipulation does not affect either (1) Plaintiffs’ ability to contest the

authenticity of any document or thing produced by Defendants or CDCR, or (2) Defendants’
ability to contest the authenticity of any document or thing produced by Plaintiffs.
8.

In the event that a dispute arises regarding the authenticity of a document after

the close of fact discovery, the Parties agree that the Party seeking to establish the
authenticity of a document may take additional limited discovery (such as a deposition or
request for admission), on an expedited basis, for the sole purpose of authenticating such
document(s).
9.

Nothing in this stipulation shall be construed as an agreement that the proper

foundation has been laid for any documents or things that are subject to this stipulation, or
that they are admissible into evidence by any Party. The Parties hereby expressly reserve the
right to object to the admissibility of any document or thing under any grounds permitted by
law and not expressly addressed herein.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: AUTHENTICITY
CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01621-LJO-DLB
sf-3109519

3

1
2

Dated: October 15, 2012

3
4

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
BROOKS M. BEARD
DANIEL A. ZLATNIK
By:

/s/ Daniel A. Zlatnik
Daniel A. Zlatnik

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs RYAN COUCH and
KENNETH JIMENEZ

6
7
Dated: October 15, 2012
8

EDWARD J. CADEN
LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD J. CADEN

9
By:
10

/s/ Edward J. Caden (as authorized on
October 12, 2012)
Edward J. Caden

11
Attorney for Plaintiffs RYAN COUCH and
KENNETH JIMENEZ

12
13
Dated: October 15, 2012

16

KAMALA D. HARRIS.
Attorney General of the State of California
SCOTT H. WYCKOFF
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MARY HORST
Deputy Attorney General

17

By:

14
15

18
19

/s/ Scott H. Wyckoff (as authorized on
October 12, 2012)
Scott H. Wyckoff

Attorneys for Defendants TOMMY WAN,
KIMBERLI BONCORE, AND RALPH DIAZ

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
Dated:

25
26
27

/s/ Dennis

October 16, 2012

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: AUTHENTICITY
CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01621-LJO-DLB
sf-3109519

4