Ellis v. Navarro et al

Filing 85

ORDER RE 3/19/2012 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER 83 . Signed by Judge beeler on 4/16/2012. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco
NICHOLAS BART ELLIS,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 07-05126 SBA (LB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE 3/19/2012 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER

v.
13
SERGEANT A. NAVARRO, et al.,

[ECF No. 83]

14
15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16

I. INTRODUCTION

17

Plaintiff Nicholas Bart Ellis and the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”), an interested party,

18

filed a joint discovery letter on March 19, 2012 addressing OIG’s objections to the court’s order that

19

they produce investigation materials sought by Plaintiff. 3/19/2012 Joint Discovery Letter, ECF No.

20

83 at 1. Following a hearing on April 12, 2012, and considering the parties’ respective arguments

21

contained in the letter, the court orders OIG to produce the summary reports regarding the 2008 OIG

22

investigation.
II. BACKGROUND

23
24

On January 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed an ex parte request that the court order OIG to produce

25

records relevant to Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff’s 1/3/2012 Discovery Letter at 1. The records at issue

26

document a 2008 OIG investigation into complaints against four California Department of

27

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) officers working at Pelican Bay State Prison. Two of

28

those officers, defendants Navarro and Juarez, are named defendants in this case. 3/19/2012 Joint
ORDER
C 07-05126 SBA (LB)

1

Letter, ECF No. 83 at 1-2. On January 27, 2012, the court granted Plaintiff’s request and ordered

2

OIG to “release all investigation materials concerning the named defendants in this action under the

3

Stipulated Protective Order As Modified.” Order re 1/17/2012 Discovery Letter, ECF No. 80 at 2.

4

Due to some confusion between Plaintiff, OIG, and CDCR during the discovery process, OIG had

5

not yet had an opportunity to voice its objections to this discovery order. Id. OIG’s objections,

6

along with Plaintiff’s responses, are the subject of this joint letter. Id.

7

II. LEGAL STANDARD

discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .”

10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery

11

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. However, “[o]n

12
For the Northern District of California

Subject to the limitations imposed by subsection (b)(2)(C), under Rule 26, “[p]arties may obtain

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by

13

these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative

14

or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome,

15

or less expensive; (2) the party seeking discovery in has had ample opportunity to obtain the

16

information by discovery in the action; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery

17

outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the

18

parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the

19

discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

20

IV. DISCUSSION

21

OIG first objects that the requested discovery is irrelevant to this case. Id. at 3. The court,

22

however, has already determined that the investigation materials sought by Plaintiff are relevant.

23

See Order Re 1/17/2012 Joint Discovery Letter, ECF No. 80.

24

OIG next objects that the investigation materials contain highly sensitive and private

25

information, including the identities of inmates who could be put in danger for their cooperation.

26

3/19/2012 Joint Discovery Letter, ECF No. 83 at 3. As Plaintiff points out, the court has already

27

ordered that the OIG materials be produced for “attorneys’ eyes only” under the Stipulated

28

Protective Order As Modified. Id. at 5. This procedure is sufficient to address OIG’s safety and
ORDER
C 07-05126 SBA (LB)

2

1

security concerns.

2

OIG also objects on the grounds that production of the entire investigation file is unnecessarily

3

broad and unduly burdensome. Id. at 3. According to OIG, the investigation materials consist of

4

approximately eleven boxes of documents, and include dozens of recorded interviews. Id. at 2. The

5

allegations of misconduct involved not only the two defendants in this case, but two other CDCR

6

officers whose personal information would have to be protected. Id. Further, because of their

7

confidentiality under state law, OIG asserts that it would be required to copy and redact the material

8

using its own staff; a process which could take weeks due to its limited budget and manpower . Id.

9

Based on the representations of counsel at the April 12, 2012 hearing, OIG has reviewed the

entirety of which is stored in the aforementioned eleven boxes – generated in the 2008 investigation.

12
For the Northern District of California

summary reports – which summarize the extensive record produced by that investigation, the

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

It has not reviewed the entire record. Because the court recognizes that releasing the entire

13

investigative record to Plaintiff would place a substantial burden and expense on OIG and the

14

information contained in that record is likely of limited importance to the narrow categories of

15

excessive force and truth-telling relevant to this case, the court only orders the production of the

16

summary reports.

17

If after reviewing the summary reports Plaintiff believes a more detailed review of the

18

investigative record would produce relevant information, the parties shall meet and confer to

19

determine the most efficient procedure for making that information available. One possibility would

20

be for OIG to review the eleven boxes and produce only the information relevant to excessive force

21

and truth-telling. At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel proposed that the entire record be made

22

available for Plaintiff’s counsel to review. Regardless, should Plaintiff seek production of

23

information beyond the summary reports, Plaintiff may have to bear the cost. The court declines to

24

rule on these potential issues at this time. Should disputes arise, the parties are welcome to submit

25

them to the court through the joint discovery letter process.

26

///

27

///

28

///
ORDER
C 07-05126 SBA (LB)

3

1

///

2

///

3

Accordingly, the court ORDERS OIG to release the summary reports generated by the 2008

4

OIG investigation under the Stipulated Protective Order As Modified (Dkt. 58) and, as soon as

5

practicable, produce them to Plaintiff and Defendant for “attorneys’ eyes only” review.

6

This disposes of ECF No. 83.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: April 16, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
C 07-05126 SBA (LB)

4