Armstrong, et al v. Davis, et al

Filing 1892

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING DEFENDANTS 1879 Motion to Quash. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2011)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

No. C 94-2307 CW
JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

6
7
8

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO QUASH
(Docket No. 1879)

Plaintiffs,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., et al.,

9

Defendants.
/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al., move to quash

12

Plaintiffs’ notice of deposition and request for production of

13

documents.

14

Plaintiffs from propounding additional discovery until after the

15

parties reach an impasse regarding Plaintiffs’ proposed

16

modifications to Defendants’ plan concerning class members housed

17

in county jails.

18

papers.

19

Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.

20
21

Defendants also seek a protective order prohibiting

The motion was taken under submission on the

Having considered the papers submitted by the parties, the

BACKGROUND
Because the Court’s previous orders amply summarize this case,

22

only the background necessary to resolve this motion is provided

23

below.

24

On September 16, 2009, the Court directed Defendants to

25

develop and issue a plan for ensuring timely and appropriate

26

accommodations for class members housed in county jails.

27

Defendants appealed the Court’s Order.

28

Notwithstanding their

1

appeal, Defendants developed a county jails plan, which took effect

2

on April 1, 2010.

3

On September 7, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s

4

conclusion that Defendants’ obligations under federal law apply to

5

class members housed in county jails.

6

622 F.3d 1058, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010).

7

vacated the portion of the Court’s Order granting prospective

8

relief, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support

9

it.

Id.

Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger,
However, the Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit remanded “to allow the parties to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

adduce additional evidence and to permit the district court to

11

prepare an order supported by the evidence before it.”

12

particular, the Ninth Circuit stated, “The district court shall

13

facilitate the parties’ efforts, in particular the plaintiffs’, to

14

obtain evidence relevant to the resolution of this question.”

15

at 1063.

16

too much evidence would certainly be preferable to too little.”

17

Id. at 1074.

18

granting prospective relief, Defendants have kept in place the

19

county jails plan implemented on April 1, 2010.

20

Id.

In

Id.

The Ninth Circuit noted that, “in this case as in others,

Notwithstanding the vacatur of the Court’s Order

Since the Ninth Circuit’s mandate issued, the parties have

21

exchanged correspondence in an attempt to resolve the evidentiary

22

issue through informal means.

23

Defendants, Plaintiffs indicated they had sufficient supporting

24

evidence and asked Defendants to agree to a stipulated injunction,

25

“which would largely mirror the remedial aspects of the [September

26

16, 2009] order, but with certain modifications that may bring it

27

more in line with Defendants’ current practices.”

28

Ex. B, at 4.

In a January 5, 2011 letter to

Russell Decl.,

Defendants did not agree to enter into a stipulated
2

1

injunction, but instead asked Plaintiffs to provide the evidence on

2

which they relied.

3

after they “received and assessed Plaintiffs’ evidence.”

4

C, at 2.

5

Defendants refused to meet and confer until
Id., Ex.

On or about February 7, 2011, Plaintiffs provided Defendants

6

with evidence Plaintiffs believed supported revisions to

7

Defendants’ county jails plan.

8

evidence to be insufficient, and again refused to meet and confer

9

until after they received and assessed additional evidence from

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendants found Plaintiffs’

Plaintiffs.

11

On March 8, 2011, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a draft

12

stipulated injunction, which provided relief nearly identical to

13

that afforded under the Court’s September 16, 2009 Order.

14

Plaintiffs asked to meet and confer with Defendants.

15

refused to agree to the stipulated injunction, and indicated that

16

they preferred to “keep the current process in place until we have

17

a better understanding of how AB 109 will be implemented.”

18

Decl., Ex. G, at 1.

19

2011, made certain changes to parole in California, which are

20

scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2011.

21

2011 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 15.

22

Defendants

Russell

AB 109, approved by Governor Brown on April 4,

See generally A.B. 109,

Having failed to secure a meet and confer session or a

23

stipulated injunction, on April 1, 2011, Plaintiffs asked

24

Defendants to meet and confer to schedule dates for depositions

25

concerning the county jails plan.

26

responded, finally proposing a meeting with Plaintiffs about “the

27

operation of Defendants’ county jail plan.”

28

at 1.

On April 6, 2011, Defendants

Russell Decl., Ex. I,

Defendants indicated that “the persons most knowledgeable
3

1

about the plan’s details will be present at the meeting to respond

2

to Plaintiffs’ questions.”

3

Defendants asked that Plaintiffs agree not to propound formal

4

discovery regarding the county jails plan.

5

requested that Plaintiffs provide more specific evidence regarding

6

the purported deficiencies in the plan.

7

Plaintiffs responded, stating that they intended to pursue formal

8

discovery, but were also interested in meeting with Defendants

9

about the county jails plan.

Id.

In exchange for such a meeting,

Defendants also

On April 8, 2011,

On April 13, 2011, Defendants

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

responded, again seeking additional evidence from Plaintiffs and

11

insisting on holding a “meeting concerning the adequacy of

12

Defendants’ county jail plan in lieu of discovery.”

13

2.

14

Id., Ex. K, at

On April 15, 2011, Plaintiffs served their notice of

15

deposition for the person most knowledgeable regarding twenty-four

16

subjects and their request for production of documents.

17

25, 2011, Defendants identified the persons they designated as most

18

knowledgeable on the subjects listed in Plaintiffs’ notice.

19
20

On April 28, 2011, Plaintiffs agreed to delay the beginning of
depositions until May 31, 2011.

21
22

On April

DISCUSSION
Defendants have not justified precluding Plaintiffs from

23

taking the discovery they seek.

24

relevant to Defendants’ practices concerning class members housed

25

in county jails.

26

Plaintiffs’ notice provides for the deposition of high-ranking

27

state officials, it must be quashed.

28

expressly seek to depose any high-ranking officials, and Defendants

Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are

Defendants contend that, to the extent that

4

However, Plaintiffs do not

1

do not identify any such officials implicated by Plaintiffs’

2

notice.

3

actions concerning the denial of a right of access protected by

4

Titles II or III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, are not

5

applicable to the enforcement stage of this action and do not

6

preclude Plaintiffs from taking discovery.

Finally, General Order 56’s procedures, which pertain to

7

Upon the completion of discovery, Plaintiffs shall disclose to

8

Defendants all evidence they believe justifies amending Defendants’

9

county jails plan.

Within twenty-eight days of Plaintiffs’

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

proffer, the parties shall meet and confer to determine whether

11

this matter can be resolved through a stipulated injunction.

12

the parties cannot agree, Plaintiffs shall move for appropriate

13

relief.

14

conferring and agreeing on a stipulated injunction at any time, and

15

the Court encourages both sides to do so.

None of this precludes the parties from meeting and

16
17

If

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion

18

to quash.

19

2011, as scheduled.

20

request for documents in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil

21

Procedure 30(b)(2) and 34(b)(2).

22

(Docket No. 1879.)

Depositions shall begin on May 31,

Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs’

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:

5/24/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
5