Coston v. Nangalama et al

Filing 251

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/18/2023 WITHDRAWING the 247 Motion to Compel, VACATING the 8/23/2023 hearing date and DIRECTING CSP-Sac to conduct a diligent search for documents responsive to the requests of both Subpoenas and complete its production of those documents by 8/23/2023. CSP-Sac shall prepare a declaration similar to the one ordered in Scruggs v. Vance, 2011 WL 6368297 at *13 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) detailing the following for each request of the Subpoenas as described in this order and shall serve this declaration on Mr. Coston by 8/25/2023. (Spichka, K.)

1 Julie A. Shepard (SBN 175538)
[e-mail]
2 Alice S. Kim (SBN 317479)
[e-mail]
3 Eric Wolff (SBN 341180)
[e-mail]
4 Tal Ratner Solovey (SBN 348113)
[e-mail]
5 JENNER & BLOCK LLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
6 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246
Telephone:
[phone]
7 Facsimile:
[phone]
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Danny Murphy Coston
9 Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page
10
11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

14
15 DANNY MURPHY COSTON,

Case No. 2:10-cv-02009-MCE-EFB

16

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE CALIFORNIA STATE
PRISON – SACRAMENTO’S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
SUBPOENAS

17

Plaintiff,
v.

18 ANDREW NANGALAMA, et al.,
19
20
21

Defendants.

[Declaration of Eric Wolff filed
concurrently herewith]
Judge:
Hon. Edmund F. Brennan
Courtroom: 8

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CSP-SAC’S SUBPOENA RESPONSE
Case No. 2:10-cv-02009-MCE-EFB

1

SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT, Plaintiff Danny Murphy Coston (“Mr.

2 Coston”) and non-party California State Prison – Sacramento (“CSP-Sac,” together with Mr. Coston,
3 “the Parties”), through their counsel, in order to resolve Mr. Coston’s pending Motion to Compel
4 Discovery from CSP-Sac (ECF No. 247), jointly submit the following Stipulation and Proposed Order
5 regarding CSP-Sac’s responses to Mr. Coston’s two subpoenas served on CSP-Sac on November 15,
6 2022 and January 30, 2023.
7
8

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Mr. Coston personally served CSP-Sac with a Subpoena Duces Tecum (the “First

9 Subpoena”) on November 15, 2022 and specified a return date of December 6, 2022;
10

WHEREAS, CSP-Sac did not respond to Mr. Coston’s First Subpoena by the deadline;

11

WHEREAS, on January 30, 2023, counsel for Mr. Coston served a second Subpoena Duces

12 Tecum (the “Second Subpoena,” together with the First Subpoena, “the Subpoenas”) on CSP-Sac and
13 specified a return date of February 20, 2023;
14

WHEREAS, CSP-Sac did not respond to Mr. Coston’s Second Subpoena by the deadline;

15

WHEREAS, from December 2022 through June 2023, the Parties met and conferred

16 extensively regarding CSP-Sac’s responses to the Subpoenas;
17

WHEREAS, during the period of December 2022 through June 2023, CSP-Sac represented to

18 counsel for Mr. Coston that it experienced staff shortages, a backlog of requests, and technical issues
19 that contributed to the delays in its production in response to the Subpoenas;
20

WHEREAS, on June 14, 2023, CSP-Sac represented that it had completed its production in

21 response to both Subpoenas as of June 13, 2023;
22

WHEREAS, on July 27, 2023, Mr. Coston filed a Motion to Compel Discovery from Non-Party

23 California State Prison – Sacramento (the “Motion”) due to CSP-Sac’s failure to conduct a diligent
24 search and produce all documents responsive to the Subpoenas, and noticed the hearing for August 23,
25 2023 (ECF No. 247);
26

WHEREAS, on July 27, 2023, the same day the Motion was filed, Mr. Coston’s counsel sent

27 CSP-Sac’s counsel a draft Joint Statement of Discovery Disagreement (“Joint Statement”) detailing
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CSP-SAC’S SUBPOENA RESPONSE
Case No. 2:10-cv-02009-MCE-EFB

1 the facts relevant to the Motion, the Parties’ efforts to meet and confer, and Mr. Coston’s positions
2 regarding the deficiencies in CSP-Sac’s production in response to each request of the Subpoenas;
3

WHEREAS, on August 8, 2023, CSP-Sac proposed this stipulation as a resolution to the

4 Motion.
5
6

STIPULATION
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby respectfully ask this Court to enter the following

7 Orders:
8

1.

CSP-Sac shall conduct a diligent search for documents responsive to the requests of

9 both Subpoenas and complete its production of those documents by August 23, 2023.
10

2.

CSP-Sac shall prepare a declaration similar to the one ordered in Scruggs v. Vance, 2011

11 WL 6368297, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) detailing the following for each request of the
12 Subpoenas: (1) CSP-Sac’s efforts to find documents responsive to the request, (2) any document
13 retention policy that affected CSP-Sac’s ability to produce documents responsive to the request, (3)
14 any litigation hold that was placed on any of the documents requested, and (4) list any requested
15 documents that were destroyed, when the destruction occurred, and append a copy of the document
16 retention policy governing the destruction, and shall serve this declaration on Mr. Coston by August
17 25, 2023.
18

3.

Mr. Coston’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 247) is deemed WITHDRAWN and the

19 August 23, 2023 hearing date is VACATED.
20

SO STIPULATED.

21 Dated: August 9, 2023
22
23
24
25
26 ///

JENNER & BLOCK LLP
/s/ Julie A. Shepard
Julie A. Shepard
Alice S. Kim
Eric Wolff
Tal Ratner Solovey
Attorneys for Plaintiff Danny Murphy Coston

27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CSP-SAC’S SUBPOENA RESPONSE
Case No. 2:10-cv-02009-MCE-EFB

1 Dated: August 9, 2023
2
/s/ Amie Bears (as authorized on 8/9/2023)
Catherine Woodbridge (SBN 186186)
Amie Bears (SBN 242372)
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7

Attorneys for Non-Party California State Prison –
Sacramento

8
9

Attorneys for Defendant Andrew Nangalama

10
11

[PROPOSED] ORDER

12

Based on the above stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

CSP-Sac shall conduct a diligent search for documents responsive to the requests of

14 both Subpoenas and complete its production of those documents by August 23, 2023.
15

2.

CSP-Sac shall prepare a declaration similar to the one ordered in Scruggs v. Vance, 2011

16 WL 6368297, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) detailing the following for each request of the
17 Subpoenas: (1) CSP-Sac’s efforts to find documents responsive to the request, (2) any document
18 retention policy that affected CSP-Sac’s ability to produce documents responsive to the request, (3)
19 any litigation hold that was placed on any of the documents requested, and (4) list any requested
20 documents that were destroyed, when the destruction occurred, and append a copy of the document
21 retention policy governing the destruction, and shall serve this declaration on Mr. Coston by August
22 25, 2023.
23

3.

Mr. Coston’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 247) is deemed WITHDRAWN and the

24 August 23, 2023, hearing date is VACATED.
25
26 DATED: August 18, 2023.
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CSP-SAC’S SUBPOENA RESPONSE
Case No. 2:10-cv-02009-MCE-EFB