Tilei v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Filing
90
Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/28/2017. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
PUNAOFO TSUGITO TILEI,
Case No. 12-cv-01688-PJH (MEJ)
Plaintiff,
8
DISCOVERY ORDER
v.
Re: Dkt. No. 85
9
10
11
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
13
INTRODUCTION
14
15
16
Plaintiff Punaofo Tsugito Tilei (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), A. Ingram, B. Jeffery, A. Alton, A. Meyer, J. Sanchez,
and G. Ramey (collectively “Defendants”), submitted a joint letter brief addressing the parties’
17
discovery disputes. Ltr. Br., Dkt. No. 76; Am. Ltr. Br., Dkt. No. 80. The Court heard oral
18
argument on August 31, 2017. Aug. 31, 2017 Minute Entry, Dkt. No. 84. That same day, in
19
response to Plaintiff’s discovery request, the Court ordered Defendants to “produce, for in camera
20
review, any and all documents relating to the investigation of the Defendant Correctional Officers,
21
or to their discipline, for incidents similar to those alleged in the Complaint” so the Court could
22
ascertain whether the incidents described in the requested documents are sufficiently similar to
23
warrant production of the documents to Plaintiff. Discovery Order, Dkt. No. 83. Defendants
24
produced the files. Defs.’ Not. of Lodgment of Confidential Privileged Docs. for In-Camera
25
Review, Dkt. No. 85.
26
After conducting its review, and upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and relevant
27
legal authority, the Court ORDERS production of the files corresponding to Bates Nos. 0017128
1
00291 (Case No. N-SVSP-930-15-A), 00292-00306 (Case No. SVSP-L-11-2349), and 00361-
2
00390 (Case No. SVSP-L-12-04331) for the reasons set forth below. These disclosures are
3
subject to the protective order already in place (Stipulated Protective Order, Dkt. No. 63);
4
however, given potential privacy concerns, Defendants should redact the following from the
5
documents to be produced:
6
-
locations of non-party prisoners;
7
8
-
Badge and identification numbers, signatures, addresses, and phone numbers of all CDCR
staff; and
9
10
Names (replace with “Inmate 1” and “Inmate 2”), identification numbers, and housing
-
Names of any non-party correctional officers and other CDCR staff.
BACKGROUND
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Plaintiff is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, a CDCR facility. Am. Compl., Dkt.
13
No. 38 at 2; Am. Ltr. Br., at 1. Plaintiff’s suit arises from the “unwarranted and cruel assaults and
14
sexual abuses” six individual Defendants (employees of CDCR) allegedly committed from
15
September 2011 through December 2011“in retaliation for [the] hunger strike he [] initiated to
16
protest CDCR’s failure to provide him with adequate medical care.” Id. One Defendant, G.
17
Ramey, also allegedly removed prescribed medical appliances (a cane and neck brace) from
18
Plaintiff’s cell. Am. Compl. at 5.
19
LEGAL STANDARD
20
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
21
party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of
22
the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant
23
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
24
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information
25
within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R.
26
Civ. P. 26. “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable
27
than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the
28
action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401 (“Rule 401”).
2
1
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (“Rule 404(b)”), while “[e]vidence of a crime,
2
wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a
3
particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character”, “[t]his evidence may be
4
admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
5
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Rule 404(b).
6
7
DISCUSSION
“[A]ny matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear
8
on, any issue that is or may be in the case” is relevant. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437
9
U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Discovery is meant to define and clarify the issues, which is why it is not
limited to the specific issues raised in the pleadings. Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 296
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(C.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Oppenheimer, 437 U.S. at 351). Therefore, determinations of relevancy
12
should be made “liberally and with common sense”, and discovery should be allowed unless the
13
information sought has “no conceivable bearing on the case.” Miller, 141 F.R.D. at 296.
14
Defendants contend that the information contained in the set of files at issue is not relevant
15
to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff intends to demonstrate Defendants’ propensity for and pattern of
16
using excessive force and failing to provide adequate medical care; this use would be prohibited
17
by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a). As discussed below, certain files the Court reviewed
18
describe incidents in which prisoners were allegedly denied treatment or use of their prescribed
19
medical equipment. While evidence relating to these incidents is not admissible for the purposes
20
advocated by Plaintiff, the Court finds they could be relevant to the subject matter of this action
21
and may be admissible under Rule 404(b).
22
The files corresponding to Bates No. 00171-00291 (Case No. N-SVSP-930-15-A) and
23
Bates No. 00292-00306 (Case No. SVSP-L-11-2349) pertain to denials of treatment or the use of
24
prescribed medical equipment that are sufficiently similar to the incidents alleged in the Amended
25
Complaint. Plaintiff cannot use evidence of other similar incidents to prove that he was subjected
26
to unlawful force or that he was not provided with adequate medical care over the period he
27
alleges. But under Rule 404(b), these files may be admissible for purposes other than to prove
28
character or that Defendant G. Ramey acted in accordance with this character; for example, the
3
1
evidence may be admissible to prove absence of mistake, intent, or lack of accident. Rule 404(b).
2
Information from personnel files, such as records of conduct, performance, and evaluations of
3
officers “may lead to evidence of a continuing course of conduct reflecting malicious intent or
4
reveal the defendant officers’ patterns of behavior, as well as [their agency’s] response to such
5
behavior.” Hernandez v. City of Napa, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88045, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 29,
6
2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Another consideration is that the information
7
sought is not available through other discovery or from other sources, but may be relevant to the
8
issues in this case. Thus, although the Court agrees that the reasons articulated by Plaintiff do not
9
support production of the files, the Court finds Plaintiff has met his burden of establishing the files
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
are relevant under Rule 401, and that the evidence therein may be admissible under Rule 404(b).
The file corresponding to Bates No. 00361-00390 (Case No. SVSP-L-12-04331) details the
12
incident alleged in the present case. It was previously produced as part of Defendants’ Response
13
to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, then Bates stamped AGO 6098-6127. It need
14
not be produced a second time.
15
Defendants also generally object to the production of these documents based on the “harm
16
to the safety and security that disclosure presents, and the violation of defendants’ privacy rights
17
that would result from disclosure.” Am. Ltr. Br., at 5. “A conclusory objection based on
18
institutional security, however, is insufficient.” McCoy v. Holguin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
19
148429, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2017) (internal citation omitted). Any vague threats of harm to
20
safety and security are addressed by the fact the information will be produced subject to the
21
protective order already in place, and the redactions and changes listed above will mitigate any
22
concerns regarding violations of privacy, for Defendants and non-parties alike.
23
The situations and actions described in the other files submitted for in camera review are
24
not sufficiently similar to those alleged in this case to be found relevant. Therefore, they do not
25
warrant production.
26
27
28
4
CONCLUSION
1
2
Based on the analysis above, the Court ORDERS production of the files corresponding to
3
Bates Nos. 00171-00291 (Case No. N-SVSP-930-15-A) and 00292-00306 (Case No. SVSP-L-11-
4
2349), subject to the redactions set forth above.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
8
9
Dated: September 28, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?