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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?