Jones v. U.S. Border Patrol Agent Hernandez et al

Filing 78

ORDER on discovery disputes (Plaintiff's RFP (Set 4) Nos. 41-49 and RFI No. 1. (ajf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALTON JONES,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No.: 16-CV-1986-W(WVG)
Plaintiff,

vs.
U.S. BORDER PATROL
AGENT GERARDO
HERNANDEZ et al.,

17

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
(PLAINTIFF’S RFP (SET 4) NOS. 4149 AND RFI NO. 1)

Defendants.

18
19

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

20

This discovery dispute involves Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents

21

(Set 4) (“RFPs”) Nos. 41 through 49 and his Request for Inspection (“RFI”) No. 1. The

22

parties have provided the Court detailed synopses of their positions,1 which the Court

23

finds are sufficient for resolution without argument or additional briefing. See S.D. Cal.

24

L. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1). Defendants’ objections to RFP Nos. 41, 42, and 44 through 49 are

25

OVERRULED as moot. With respect to RFP No. 43 and RFI No. 1, Defendants’ lack-

26

of-proportionality objections are SUSTAINED.

27
28

1

Attached hereto as Attachment A.
1

16-CV-1986-W(WVG)

1

The Court need not reach whether the subject matter of RFP Nos. 41, 42, and 44

2

through 49 are discoverable because, as a threshold matter, any disputes over these

3

RFPs are moot. In his declaration, Rodney S. Scott—the Chief Patrol Agent in charge

4

of the U.S. Border Patrol’s San Diego Sector—declares under penalty of perjury that

5

Border Patrol personnel have conducted a search and have not uncovered any

6

documents responsive to RFP Nos. 41, 42, and 43 through 49. Agent Scott also

7

declares that Defendants will supplement their responses to produce any responsive

8

documents that are discovered in the future. Given Agent Scott’s representations, there

9

simply is no dispute before the Court—Defendants have conducted a search, have found

10

nothing, and have sufficiently responded to the RFPs in question. As a result, the

11

objections are moot despite Plaintiff’s continued efforts to obtain documents that—

12

accordingly to Agent Scott—do not exist to the best of his knowledge. It according

13

makes no sense to entertain disputes over, issue a protective order for, or compel the

14

production of discovery that does not exist. As a result, Defendants’ objections are

15

OVERRULED as moot, and they need not further respond to RFP Nos. 41, 42, and 44

16

through 49 unless responsive documents are discovered in the future.

17

With respect to RFP No. 43, the Court need not reach Defendants’ invocation of

18

the law enforcement privilege because, as a threshold matter, this RFP is not

19

proportional to the needs of the case given the uncomplicated nature of the case, the

20

discovery Defendants have produced to date, and Agent Scott’s representations about

21

the sensitive nature of the responsive document. Defendants’ lack-of-proportionality

22

objection to RFP No. 43 is SUSTAINED.

23

Finally, through RFI No. 1, Plaintiff seeks to enter, view, and inspect the “control

24

center” where agents operate RVSS cameras. As with RFP No. 43, RFI No. 1 is not

25

proportional to the needs of the case and is even less so given what Plaintiff seeks to

26

discover from the inspection, the intrusive nature of the request, and the much greater

27

prospect that irrelevant yet highly sensitive information will be gleaned from the

28

2

16-CV-1986-W(WVG)

1

inspection. This request goes beyond production of a cold document but seeks to

2

physically enter the nerve center where agents run a highly-sensitive camera system that

3

watches over the United States-Mexico border. This case does not justify such an

4

intrusive, sensitive inspection. Defendants’ lack-of-proportionality objection to RFI

5

No. 1 is SUSTAINED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: January 5, 2018

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

16-CV-1986-W(WVG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ATTACHMENT A
4

16-CV-1986-W(WVG)

RE: 16cv1986 Jones case
Hayes, Hunter

to:

Bettwy, Samuel (USACAS),

12/28/2017 11:59 AM

Cc: "Wallace, Dave (USACAS)", "XT McKinney, Zoe"

Below is Plaintiff’s synopsis of the pending dispute regarding camera evidence.  As the Court is likely 
aware, the government produced a recording from a Border Patrol RVSS camera system that captured 
some, but not all, of the incident in this case.  Much of the video is grainy and low resolution, making it 
difficult to determine what occurred, and most of the critical events in this case occur in a known blind 
spot of the RVSS system.  Plaintiff has sought discovery about the camera system in order to understand 
the video and radio evidence produced in this case and test the government’s factual assertions that the 
camera system was used “properly.”  Dkt. 68‐3 (Decls. of Mike Apple and Jose Cruz I/S/O Mot. to Dismiss 
or for Summ. J.). 

Apple Deposition Instructions Not to Answer
At the deposition of Mike Apple on December 20, the government’s counsel instructed Mr. Apple not to 
answer basic questions regarding the RVSS system.  The Court will recall that, in its written submission 
and at the hearing regarding the ongoing dispute over Plaintiff’s right to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) 
deposition of the party that sued him, the government stated that Plaintiff should not be entitled to a 
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the cameras in part because “Mike Apple will be able to testify about 
the RVSS camera or cameras that could see the area of the incident . . . .”  Gov’t Brief at 2, Nov. 16, 2017.  

The government has now entirely shifted its position, and now claims that any  information regarding the 
capabilities of the RVSS system, and even the existence of documents about the system, is absolutely 
privileged.  At the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel (some of whom had travelled out of town for the 
deposition) were prevented from asking entire lines of questioning related to the camera’s basic 
functions.  Mr. Apple was instructed not to answer questions seeking (a) “who manufactures the 
camera” (Apple Depo. Tr. 32:10‐15); (b) “[w]hat documents” show “how to operate the RVSS” (id. 
34:11‐23); (c) “what actions or practices constitute proper use of the equipment” (id. 35:3‐10); and (d) 
whether there are “written policies regarding the operation of the cameras” (id. 37:16‐25).  The 
government is seeking to block discovery that may confirm or deny its own factual claims regarding 
proper use of the system and the existence of documents regarding the system. (As to the identity of the 
manufacturer, Plaintiff’s counsel later learned the government has not even kept that confidential, so it 
cannot be subject to any privilege.  Kelly v. City of San Jose , 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 1987).)

After these objections, the deposition was paused while counsel met and conferred about the scope of 
the privilege the government claims.  Plaintiff’s counsel provided authorities demonstrating that the 
government’s privilege claims were wrong, because the government has not made a threshold showing 
that the specific information requested will unduly hinder Border Patrol operations if provided subject to 
a protective order.  Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to provide the government additional time to consider 
these authorities and speak with the agency regarding the appropriate scope of the law enforcement 
investigatory privilege, and government counsel agreed that Mr. Apple would be available for a 
continued deposition.  At a further meet and confer following another deposition on December 22, the 
government simply repeated the same overbroad objection it had already made.  The government also 
made both relevance and proportionality objections that are both wrong (because the camera evidence 
is critical in this case) and improper (because these are not bases for an instruction not to answer). 

16cv1986 Jones case: USA request for protective order re P ’s requests for
sensitive law enforcement information
Bettwy, Samuel (USACAS)
Cc:

to:

12/28/2017 12:00 PM

rts.gov

"Wallace, Dave (USACAS)", "Hayes, Hunter"
Zoe"

, "XT McKinney,

TO: The Honorable William V. Gallo
THRU:
DATE: December 28, 2017
RE: Jones v. Hernandez , No. 16cv1986 W (WVG)
United States’ request for protective order re Plaintiff’s requests for sensitive law enforcement information
Summary . The United States seeks protection from Plaintiff’s persistent attempts, over the last three
months, to obtain irrelevant and disproportional information about sensitive law enforcement techniques,
namely information about the capabilities and vulnerabilities of Border Patrol’s surveillance operations at
the international border, including but not limited to video surveillance (RVSS) and radio communications
systems. We have produced to Plaintiff’s counsel the declaration of San Diego Sector Chief Border Patrol
Agent Rodney Scott in which he states that disclosure of the information sought would compromise
Border Patrol’s mission to defend against trafficking and smuggling of aliens, drugs, other contraband,
and terrorist weapons (see attached Scott Declaration, paras. 11.a. & 11.b.).

Lack of relevance . Plaintiff’s counsel’s explanation to us of the relevance of the information sought
is incomprehensible, so we are unable to re-state it here. Given their statement in the pending dispute
over their Rule 30(b)(6) Notice, it seems that they’re hoping to build some far-fetched cover-up
conspiracy theory, but after extensive discovery, it is clear that there was nothing to cover up. The United
States has already disclosed ample information that is sensitive, because it is relevant to claims and
defenses in this case, including:
name and approximate location of the sensor near the all-weather road that Jones

activated
names and locations of operational areas where the incident occurred

name, title and duty assignment of all agents on duty at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol

station on the relevant days [Response to Interrogatory No. 1]
location of cameras that could potentially see the general area at issue (for which, we have

disclosed to Plaintiff, there are no recordings)
location of the camera that was pointed at and recording the incident of Jones’ running on

the all-weather road
videotape that was retained, which reveals blind spots in the RVSS camera

procedure used to record, download and burn to DVD the RVSS videotape

all radio calls that were recorded during the time of the incident

identities of agents who can be heard on the radio

radio procedures that were used in the calls relevant to this incident such as what was

being done to overcome poor radio signal (e.g., switching to “direct” to reach a high point)

Disproportional . Preserving/asserting the law enforcement privilege has required that Border
Patrol personnel expend, to date, over 150 hours to research and review responsive documents, and that
process remains ongoing. Border Patrol personnel search for and retrieve responsive documents and
then Chief Scott reviews them to determine whether their disclosure would compromise the Border
Patrol’s mission. The process remains ongoing because Plaintiff’s counsel are seeking material that goes
beyond what is in Border Patrol’s possession.

The law enforcement privilege . If this Court were to reach consideration of the law enforcement
privilege, it would weigh and compare the interests of the Department of Homeland Security (which
interests coincide with the security interests of the entire nation) in protecting its border surveillance
methods against the interests of Plaintiff to support what appears to be an outlandish conspiracy theory
for which no basis has been developed through discovery. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have recognized the
privilege, and courts nationwide consistently refuse to compel disclosure. See Shah v. Department of
Justice , No. 14-cv-624, 2015 WL 427916, at *5 (D. Nev. Feb. 2, 2015) (“courts have recognized that the
[law enforcement investigatory] privilege may be applied in order to ensure the efficacy of investigative
techniques in future cases.”) (APA case); Benhoff v. DOJ , No. 16cv1095 GPC (JLB), 2017 WL 840879,
at *4-5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 03, 2017) (APA case); Perez v. Blue Mountain Farms , No. 13-CV-5081-RMP,
2015 WL 11112414, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2015) (motion to compel). See also Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico v. United States , 490 F.3d 50, 62 (1st Cir. 2007) (APA-type action); Azmy v. U.S.
Department of Defense , 562 F. Supp. 2d 590, 601-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (FOIA case), Tri-State Hosp.
Supply Corp. v. United States , 2005 WL 3447890 at *9 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (motion to compel); Tuite v.
Henry , 181 F.R.D. 175, 180 (D.D.C. 1998) (motion to compel).

Procedural history . The United States first asserted the law enforcement privilege at the
September 28, 2017 deposition of Border Patrol Agent McFarlin. We instructed Agent McFarlin not to
answer, and we proposed to Plaintiff’s counsel to call Your Honor at that time to reach an early resolution,
but Plaintiff’s counsel declined . [McFarlin Tr. 46-49 (attached to our Nov. 16, 2017 position statement
(.pdf at 101)).]

About two weeks later, on October 10, 2017, the issue arose again at the deposition of Agent
Kulakowski. We once again instructed Agent Kulakowski not to answer, and we again proposed to call
Your Honor to resolve the issue: Plaintiff’s counsel at first agreed and then decided to withdraw the
question . [Kulakowski Tr. 205-07 (attached to our Nov. 16, 2017 position statement (.pdf at 319-20)).]

On October 23, 2017, the issue arose again with respect to Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) Notice, which
dispute is pending before Your Honor.

On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff served RFP #4, seeking extensive information about the
capabilities and vulnerabilities of Border Patrol’s surveillance systems. In our November 16, 2017 position
statement (at 5 n.3), we attached RFP #4 to flag the issue. On December 15, 2017, we responded to
Plaintiff’s RFP #4, invoking the privilege and presenting Chief Scott’s declaration, which will likely be
supplemented, but which contains a general explanation that information about the capabilities and
vulnerabilities of the RVSS and radio communication systems would compromise the law enforcement
mission of the Border Patrol to surveil and protect our border (see attached Scott Declaration, paras.
11.a. & 11.b.).

On December 13, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel served us with a request to inspect Border Patrol’s
operations center where video surveillance is conducted (see attached Request to Inspect). We have
informed Plaintiff’s counsel that we will be objecting to their request.

On December 20, 2017, at the deposition of Mike Apple, Plaintiff’s counsel continued to seek
sensitive law enforcement information, so we agreed that, given all of the different, unresolved
manifestations of this dispute, his deposition would remain open until its resolution. [Apple Tr. 32, 34, 37,
69.]

On December 22, 2017 (at the conclusion of Plaintiff’s deposition of Agent Herrera), counsel met
and conferred and then called Your Honor’s chambers and left a voicemail message.

Conclusion . The United States is seeking protection from all further requests for information about
the capabilities and vulnerabilities of Border Patrol’s surveillance operations at the international border,
including but not limited to video surveillance and radio communications systems. We contend that
Plaintiff’s counsel’s Rule 30(b)(6) Notice, their RFP #4, their request to inspect the control center where
video surveillance occurs, and their questions at multiple depositions, all seek sensitive law enforcement
information about investigative techniques that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this case. Their
requests are also disproportional to the needs of this case, especially considering the time that has been
spent and has yet to be spent on this process. The United States also asserts the law enforcement
privilege, because disclosure of the information sought would compromise the Border Patrol’s mission to
detect and prevent the illegal trafficking of people and contraband and the entry of terrorists and terrorist
weapons into the United States.

Respectfully,

s/ David B. Wallace
David. B. Wallace, AUSA
s/ Samuel W. Bettwy
Samuel W. Bettwy, AUSA
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
880 Front St., Rm. 6293
San Diego, CA 92101-8893

1 Mitra Ebadolahi (SBN 275157)
[e-mail]
2 David Loy (SBN 229235)
[e-mail]
3 Zoë McKinney (SBN 312877)
[e-mail]
4 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES
5 P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
6 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
7

Luis Li (SBN 156081)
[e-mail]
Tamerlin J. Godley (SBN 194507)
[e-mail]
Lauren C. Barnett (SBN 304301)
[e-mail]
C. Hunter Hayes (SBN 295085)
[e-mail]
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue
Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3426
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
ALTON JONES
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 ALTON JONES,
Plaintiff,

14
15

vs.

16 U.S. BORDER PATROL AGENTS
GERARDO HERNANDEZ, JODAN
17 JOHNSON, DAVID FAATOALIA,
JOSEPH BOWEN, and JOHN
18 KULAKOWSKI, each sued in their
individual capacities; UNITED
19 STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF
20 HOMELAND SECURITY; and
UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND
21 BORDER PROTECTION,

Case No. 16-cv-1986-W (WVG)
PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT ALTON JONES’S
REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION
FROM DEFENDANT AND
COUNTER-CLAIMANT UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA
Judge: Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

Defendants.

22

23 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Counter-Claimant,

24
25

vs.

26 ALTON JONES,
Counter-Defendant.

27
28
37292525.1

16-cv-1986-W (WVG)
PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT
AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

1 PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF & COUNTER-DEFENDANT ALTON
2

JONES

3 RESPONDING PARTY:

DEFENDANT & COUNTER-CLAIMANT UNITED

4

STATES OF AMERICA

5
6

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, Plaintiff Alton Jones hereby

7 requests that Defendant and Counter-Claimant United States of America (“USA”)
8 permit Plaintiff to inspect the places and tangible things listed below within thirty
9 (30) days of service of these Requests.
10
11

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
1.

PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein Rules

12 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United
13 States District Court for the Southern District of California. This Request seeks
14 responses and DOCUMENTS and things to the full extent permitted by the Federal
15 Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules.
16

2.

If YOU object to an inspection on grounds of privilege, specify with

17 particularity the nature of the claimed privilege so as to enable the claim of privilege
18 to be evaluated and, if necessary, adjudicated.
19

3.

The singular form of a word should be interpreted as plural wherever

20 necessary to bring within the scope of the request any information that might
21 otherwise be construed to be outside its scope.
22

4.

The present tense includes the past and future tenses. The singular

23 includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular. “All” means “any and all”;
24 “any” means “any and all.” “Including” means “including but not limited to.” “And”
25 and “or” encompasses both “and” and “or.” Words in the masculine, feminine, or
26 neutral form shall include each of the other genders.
27
28
37292525.1

16-cv-1986-W (WVG)
-1PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT
AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

1
2

DEFINITIONS
1.

“CAMERA 2” is a camera located near Border Field State Park,

3 pointing eastward, from which video footage was produced in this case.
4

REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION

5 Request for Inspection No. 1:
6

The control center from which CAMERA 2 is operated, and from which

7 CAMERA 2 footage may be viewed. This control center is located, on information
8 and belief, in the Chula Vista Border Patrol Station.
9
10
11 DATED: December 13, 2017
12
13
14
15

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO &
IMPERIAL COUNTIES
MITRA EBADOLAHI
DAVID LOY
ZOE MCKINNEY
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
LUIS LI
TAMERLIN J. GODLEY
LAUREN C. BARNETT
C. HUNTER HAYES

16
17
18
19
20

By:

/s/ C. Hunter Hayes
C. HUNTER HAYES
Attorneys for Plaintiff ALTON JONES

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37292525.1

16-cv-1986-W (WVG)
-2PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT
AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this
action. I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My
4
business address is 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105.
5
On December 13, 2017, I served true copies of the following document(s)
6 described as:
7
PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT ALTON JONES’S REQUESTS
8 FOR INSPECTION FROM DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
9
10 on the interested parties in this action as follows:
3

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

David B. Wallace
[e-mail]
Samuel William Bettwy
[e-mail]
United States Attorney's Office
880 Front Street
Room 6293
San Diego, CA 92101
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants/Counter-Claimant
BY E-MAIL: I served the document electronically by e-mailing the
document to the individuals on the attached service list.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office
22 of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.
21

23

Executed on December 13, 2017, at San Francisco, California.

24
25
26

/s/ Crystal Wu
Crystal Wu

27
28
16-cv-1986-W (WVG)
PROOF OF SERVICE