Loftis et al v. Ramos et al

Filing 45

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 43 Joint Motion re: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 3/20/2018. (rmc)

FILED

1

MAR 2 O 2018

2

CLERK US
. . DIS TRICT CO
SOUTHER
URT
DIST R1CT OF
CALIFOR
BY \ 117 f
NIA

3

N

4

DEPUTY

·

5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

Case No.: 16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB)

MARISSA LOFTIS, et al.,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15

DENISE RAMOS, et al.,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION RE:
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

Defendants.

16

COMPEL DISCOVERY
(ECF No. 43)

17
18
19

BACKGROUND

20

This is a § 1983 action. Plaintiff Marissa Loftis filed a complaint on behalf of herself

21

and her minor child, Marquise Deangelo Loftis Jr. (collectively "Plaintiffs").

(See ECF

22

No. 37.) Plaintiff Marissa Loftis's husband and plaintiff Marquise Deangelo Loftis Jr.'s

23

father is incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. (Id.) Plaintiffs

24

initially alleged that while visiting their husband/father on April 7, 2016, they were illegally

25

detained by defendants Ramos and Wilborn for three hours based on their religious beliefs.

26

(See ECF No. 1.)

27

Loftis was subjected to a strip search in order to regain custody of her son. (Id.) Defendants

Plaintiffs alleged that they were separated and that plaintiff Marissa

28

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB)

1

contend that plaintiff Marissa Loftis was properly detained after she was caught trying to

2

bring tobacco, a scale, and money orders into the prison. (Id.)

3

On September 25, 2017, defendants served their discovery responses, including

4

objections, a privilege log, and a declaration in support of the assertion of privilege, to

5

plaintiffs initial series of Requests for Production of Documents ("RPDs")1 directed to

6

both defendants D. Ramos and J. Wilborn. (See ECF No. 43-2.) On November 6, 2017,

7

defendants served

8

Wilborn, to the second set of RPDs propounded by plaintiff.

9

Thereafter, attorney Keith Rutman made his initial appearance on behalf of plaintiff

10

Marissa Loftis and added plaintiff Marquise Deangelo Loftis, Jr. as a party on November

11

20, 2017.2

separate responses on behalf of each defendant, D. Ramos and J.
(See ECF No. 43-5.)

12

In response to a Joint Motion to Continue Litigation Dates and Deadlines filed on

13

December 12, 2017, Judge Porter entered an Order Granting Joint Motion to Continue

14

and/or Extend Relevant Litigation Deadlines and Dates on December 15, 2017. Therein,

15

the Court vacated the deadlines previously set and issued a revised schedule for the

16

remaining discovery. She also ordered the parties to file a joint motion addressing any

17

outstanding discovery disputes no later than January 31, 2018. (ECF No. 36 at 2.) In

18

accordance with this Order, on January 31, 2018, the parties filed the instant Motion

19

seeking resolution of a discovery dispute; specifically, defendants' assertion of privilege

20

in their September 25, 2017 and November 6, 2017 responses to plaintiffs RPDs. (See

21

ECF No. 43.)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 It is unclear to the Court when Plaintiffs initially propounded the first set of Requests for
Production of Documents as it is not noted within the Joint Motion or its corresponding
exhibits. (See ECF No. 43.)
2 On August 7, 2017, Plaintiff Marquise Deangelo Loftis Jr.'s claims were dismissed
without prejudice because he was an unrepresented minor and no guardian ad !item was
formally appointed by the Court. (See ECF No. 24.)
2
16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB)

1

II

2

II

3

DISCUSSION

4

Under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is entitled to

5

seek discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to his or her claims and

6

proportional to the needs of the case.

7

reinforced the proportionality factors for defining the scope of discovery and, thus, under

8

the amended Rule 26, relevancy alone is no longer sufficient to obtain discovery.

9

R. Civ. P. 26(b )(1) advisory committee notes to 2015 amendment. Accordingly, parties

10

must conduct a cost-benefit analysis weighing the importance of the issue to the outcome

11

of the case, the amount at stake in the case, the parties' resources, and their relative access

12

to the information.

13

defense" is within the scope of permissible discovery.

14

Corp., No. 14-cv-2513-L (KSC), 2017 WL 2829691, at *5 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) ("The

15

test going forward is whether evidence is 'relevant to any party's claim or defense,' not

16

whether it is 'reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence."') (quoting In

17

IVC Filters Prods. Liability Litig., 317 F .R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016)).

The December 2015 amendment to Rule 26

See Fed.

Id. Thus, only evidence that is "relevant to any party's claim or
Id.; Medicinova Inc. v. Genzyme

re Bard

18

"The party who resists discovery has the burden to show discovery should not be

19

allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections."

20

Duran v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 258 F.R.D. 375, 378 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Blankenship v.

21

Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); Sullivan v. Prudential Ins. Co. ofAm.,

22

233 F.R.D. 573, 575 (C.D. Cal. 2005)).

23

A party may also request the production of any document within the scope of Rule

24

26(b) of the Federal Rules. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). Under Rule 34, a request for the production

25

of documents is sufficient ifthe documents or things to be produced are described by item

26

or category with "reasonable particularity."

27

reasonable particularity is whether the request places a party upon 'reasonable notice of

28

what is called for and what is not."'

Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(l)(A).

"The test for

Bruggeman v. Blagojevich, 219 F.R.D. 430, 436 (N.D.
3
16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB)

1

Ill. 2004);

2

("[A] discovery request should be sufficiently definite and limited in scope that it can be

3

said 'to apprise a person of ordinary intelligence what documents are required and [to

4

enable] the court . . . to ascertain whether the requested documents have been produced."').

5

"For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related

6

activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the

7

reasons." Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(B). Rule 34 requires that objections to a request for the

8

production of documents be timely and the grounds be stated with specificity.

9

Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2).

see also Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co. , 526 F.3d 641, 649-50 (10th Cir. 2008)

See

10

"If the responding party objects to the requested form-or if no form was specified

11

in the request-the party must state the form or forms it intends to use." Fed.R.Civ.P.

12

34(b)(2)(D). Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the Court, a party must produce

13

documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them

14

to correspond to the categories in the request. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i).

15

1.

16

In response to all of plaintiffs' requests, defendants provided the following

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Official Information Privilege Invocation

objection:
"This request seeks privileged information or materials that confidential and
protected by the official information privilege. 5 U.S.C. § 552;

Kerr v. US. Dist.
Court, 511 F.2d 192, 198-99 (9th Cir. 1975); Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147
F.R.D. 227, 229-30 (S.D. Cal. 1993); Jackson v. County of Sacramento, 175 F.R.D.
653 (E.D. Cal. 1997).

These files are kept at Richard J. Donovan Correctional

Facility. Defendants produce

[sic] the accompanying declaration of Lieutenant F.

Hernandez, Investigative Services Unit, in support of these objections.

Without

waiving any objection, Defendants produce the documents attached hereto:"3

24
25
26
27
28

3 Without waiving any objection, Defendants produced the following documents: (1) a
Notice of Request for Search (CDC 888) dated April 17, 2016; (2) five (5) photos of
contraband confiscated from Marissa Loftis on April 17, 2016; (3) a Notice of Visitor
Exclusion; (4) a visitor profile; (5) a letter dated April 19, 2016, from Marissa Loftis to
Warden Paramo; (6) a letter dated May 20, 2016, from Warden Paramo to Marissa Loftis;
(7) CDCR 22 dated May 25, 2016, from inmate Loftis, AF9076; (8) a letter dated
4
16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB)

1
2

(See ECF Nos. 43-2 at 2-5; 43-5 at 4, 9-13; 43-6 at 4-7.)
2.

3

In the Joint Motion, defendants claim plaintiffs' requests seek official information

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

that is kept confidential and considered privileged information, and is therefore not subject
to discovery. (ECF No. 43 at 9-10.) Defendants contend that disclosure of documents
containing sensitive investigatory information of illegal activity within the prison could
jeopardize official investigations and place other inmates and correctional staff at risk of
retaliation if informants were to be discovered.

17
18
19
20

(Id. at 10.) Plaintiffs assert that the requests

are relevant to the allegations in the Complaint, the documents cannot be acquired by
alternative means, and any concern of retaliation is speculative at this point.

(Id.) Plaintiffs

also assert that Defendants' concern regarding any impediment to future investigations
and/or retaliation of other inmates that the disclosures may bring can be addressed through
a protective order.

(Id.)

Federal common law recognizes a "qualified privilege for official information."

15
16

Official Information Privilege

Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Kerr

v.

U.S.

Dist. Ct. , 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 392, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d
725 (1976)). The party asserting the privilege has the burden of proving the privilege.

Kelly v. City a/San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 662 (N.D. Cal. 1987); see also Hamption v. City
of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227, 231 (S.D. Cal. 1993) ("Through this opinion, this court is

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

September 23, 2016, from Marissa Loftis to Warden Paramo; (9) a letter dated October 4,
2016, from warden Paramo to Marissa Lofits; (10) an undated letter from Marissa Loftis
to

director

Scott

Kernan

title

"In

re

DELIBERATE

FLOUTING

OF

REGULATIONS/VISITING APPEAL;" (11) a letter dated November 16, 2016, from
Kathleen Allison, director of adult institutions to Marissa Loftis; (12) an undated letter
from Marissa Loftis to Warden Paramo titled "Amended Appeal;" (13) an undated letter
from Marissa Loftis to Warden Paramo titled "Appeal regarding 'Exclusion Order;'" (14)
an inmate appeal RJD-A-16-2206, filed by inmate Loftis, AF9076; and (15) an inmate
appeal RJD-A-16-2713, filed by inmate Loftis, AF9076.
5
16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB)

1

hereby joining the Northern District's and Central District's procedures outlined in

2

v.

3

292 (C.D. Cal. 1992) for invoking the official information privilege");

4

San Diego, 2010 WL 4909630, at * 1 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (applying Kelly). Some factors that

5

courts may consider when conducting the case-by-case balancing analysis include:

6

persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed; (3) [t]he
degree to which government self-evaluation and consequent program improvement
will be chilled by disclosure; ( 4) [w]hether the information sought is factual data or

9

evaluative summary; (5) [w]hether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or

10

potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to
follow from the incident in question; (6) [w]hether the police investigation has been

11

completed; (7) [w]hether any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen

12

or may arise from the investigation; (8) [w]hether the plaintiffs suit is non-frivolous
and brought in good faith; (9) [w]hether the information sought is available through

13

other discovery or from other sources; and (10) [t]he importance of the information

14

sought to the plaintiffs case."

15

18
19

22
23
24
25
26
27

Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 663.

In making this determination, courts must conduct "a situation specific analysis of
the factors made relevant by the request in issue and the objection to it."
at 663.

Kelly, 114 F.R.D.

In civil rights cases against police departments, the balancing test should be

"moderately pre-weighed in favor of disclosure."

Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603,

613 (N.D. Cal.1995) (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661).

20
21

Stewart v. City of

discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) [t]he impact upon

8

17

City ofSan Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987) and Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D.

"(1) [t]he extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by

7

16

Kelly

To invoke the official information privilege, defendants must make a substantial
threshold showing.
v.

See Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Hampton, 147 F.R.D. at 231; and Dowell

Griffin, 275 F.R.D. 613, 616 (S.D. Cal. 2011). To meet this threshold requirement,

defendants "must submit a declaration or affidavit from a responsible official with personal
knowledge of the matters to be attested to in the affidavit."

Dowell, 275 F.R.D. at 616.

The affidavit must include: (1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected the
material in issue and has maintained its confidentiality; (2) a statement that the official has
personally reviewed the material in question; (3) a specific identification of the

28
6
16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB)

1

governmental or privacy interests that would be threatened by disclosure of the material to

2

plaintiff and/or his lawyer; (4) a description of how disclosure subject to a carefully crafted

3

protective order would create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or

4

privacy interests; and (5) a projection of how much harm would be done to the threatened

5

interests if disclosure were made.

6

omitted).

Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (internal quotation marks

7

3.

8

In the Order issued December 15, 2017, this Court directed the parties to address

9

"any outstanding discovery disputes" in a joint motion, filed no later than January 31, 2018.

10

[Doc. No. 36, p. 2]. The responsive Joint Motion filed by the parties, however, fails to

11

provide this Court with sufficient information with which to make a determination.

12

Analysis

Specifically, incomplete information is provided regarding exactly what has already

13

been produced by the defendants in response to plaintiffs' requests.

14

documents produced are identified,4 other discovery responses attached as exhibits to the

15

Joint Motion refer to the production of documents, "subject" to objections made, but fail

16

to identify any of these documents, whether they were produced, whether or not these

17

productions were responsive and adequate, and if not, why.

18

3-10; 43-6, pp. 2-3, 6.] Additionally, the disputed document requests are set forth in the

19

Joint Motion, along with the defendants' responses, but no detailed explanations are

20

provided by plaintiffs to each request to support their contention that the responses are

21

inadequate and why, other than their discussion regarding the "general scope of

22

discoverable materials." [Doc. No. 43, pp. 5-8]. The only argument set forth by plaintiffs

23

to support their demand for further production of documents is the sweeping assertion that:

24

"[p]laintiffs requests are relevant to the allegations in the lawsuit. They are simply witness

25

statements and photographs, nothing more." [Doc. No. 43, p. 1 O]. Plaintiffs go on to state,

While some

[See, e.g. Doc. No. 43-5, pp.

26
27
28

4

See footnote 3, supra.
7
16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB)

1

again without the benefit of any analysis, that "[i]t is virtually impossible or impractical to

2

acquire the information through (sic) alternative means, such as investigation or

3

interviews."

4

the information in question could jeopardize official investigations and place other inmates

5

and correctional staff in harms' way as "speculative" and something that can be addressed

6

through an appropriate protective order.

7

helpful.

Id. Lastly, plaintiffs dismiss the defendants' concerns that the disclosure of

Id. This flip response to safety concerns is not

8

Similarly, the defendants have also failed to articulate the specific bases for their

9

safety concerns and privilege assertions in response to each of the document requests at

10

issue. The Court can speculate that documents that pertain exclusively to the search of

11

plaintiff Denise Ramos may not disclose information that would put inmates or correctional

12

staff in jeopardy, and may therefore be subject to production, subject to a protective order.

13

By contrast, documents that pertain to entry screening protocol in general, if produced

14

without the protection of an appropriate protective order, could potentially be used by

15

individuals seeking admittance to the facility to avoid the detection of contraband. Further,

16

assuming that they have any relevance to this case at all, documents requested that address

17

inmate procedures

18

husband/father also raise viable security concerns, as would any documents referencing

19

investigations pertaining to him.

in the

facility,

or which

involve investigations of plaintiffs'

20

The Joint Motion also fails to adequately describe the efforts, if any, the parties have

21

made to agree to terms of a tailored protective order. Specifically, in Section C, plaintiffs

22

represents that the parties met and conferred and that plaintiffs' "offer to agree to a

23

protective order was politely declined." [Doc. No. 43, p. 5]. The defendants state in the

24

very next sentence that a protective order should be issued "in the event the Court orders

25

any confidential or privileged documents to be produced."

26

to the Court regarding efforts, if any, to reach an agreement regarding the terms for an

Id. No information is provided

27
28
8

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB)

1

appropriate protective order.5 The quoted language, however, evidences a failure on the

2

part of both parties to diligently endeavor to resolve this issue and to bring only matters in

3

dispute to the Court's attention for resolution.

4

The wholesale failure to meet and confer, in person, in detail about appropriate terms

5

for a protective order and each of the discovery requests at issue is evident. As such, the

6

parties have failed to comply with both Judge Bartick's Civil Chamber Rules and the Local

7

Rules of this Court.

See Judge Bartick's Chambers Rule IV; Civ.L.R. 26.1, 83.4.

8

Based on the Court's reading of the Joint Motion, it is evident both parties

9

completely ignored the proportionality prong of Rule 26(b)(l). For that reason, plaintiffs

10

have not addressed whether the documents they seek are proportional to the needs of this

11

case. Likewise, defendant has failed to demonstrate with specificity why the requested

12

documents should not be produced.

13

proportionality analysis, namely, "the importance of the issues at stake in this action," "the

14

burden of expense of some of the proposed discovery[,]" "the parties' relative access to

15

relevant information, the parties' resources, or the importance of the discovery in resolving

16

the issues."

17

8, 2016). As such, the Court finds both plaintiffs' requests and the defendants' objections

18

to be unsustainably overbroad.

19
20

See N. U.

v.

Neither party address factors which underly the

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 3654759, at *7 (D. Kansas July

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

21

1. The parties are ordered to meet and confer, in person, about (a) each and every

22

discovery request addressed in the Joint Motion [Doc. No. 43], and (b) terms of a

23

stipulated protective order no later than April 2, 2018.

24
25
26
27
28

5 The Court recognizes that the discussion regarding a protective order has changed, now
that the plaintiffs are represented by counsel.

In light of the nature of some of the

documents at issue, it is evident that a category of confidential documents marked as
"Confidential-Counsel Only" is appropriate.
9

16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB)

1

2. The parties are to submit a revised Joint Motion related to any outstanding discovery

2

disputes which they are not able to resolve after conscientious meet and confer

3

efforts in accordance with this Order, if necessary, no later than April 13, 2018.6

4

3. The parties may file a joint motion for protective order no later than April 13, 2018

5

subject to Rule V. of Judge Bartick's Chamber Rules.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: March 20, 2018

9
10

United St tes Magistrate Judge

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

6 If the parties choose to submit a revised Joint Motion, the parties shall submit the Joint

Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute as follows: For each written discovery
request in dispute, the Joint Motion must include: (1) The exact wording of the discovery
request; (2) The exact response to the request by the responding party; (3) A statement by
the propounding party and any points and authorities as to why a further response should
be compelled; and, (4) A precise statement by the responding party and any points and
authorities as to the bases for all objections and/or claims of privilege. Any such joint
motion shall be accompanied by a declaration from lead trial counsel of each party to the
dispute establishing compliance with the meet and confer requirements.
10
16-cv-2300-MMA (DHB)