Brown v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Lawrence Brown moved to compel compliance with a subpoena served on non-parties Monterey County and the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office, collectively referred to as Monterey County. The bulk of the briefing concerned Brown’s first document request, which sought materials concerning deaths from COVID-19 at the Correctional Training Facility between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021.

Monterey County said it did not maintain statistics specifically tailored to the facility or to COVID-19-related deaths. It instead maintained records for every reportable death within its borders and argued that searching those records as required by the subpoena would be unduly burdensome. Monterey County proposed that Brown provide a list of the deceased people’s names so that it could search for responsive documents.

Brown initially argued that he did not have such a list. He also noted that he had asked the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a party to the case, to identify incarcerated people at the facility who died of COVID-19. CDCR objected and apparently did not provide the identities. Brown later represented that he had provided Monterey County with approximately twenty-two names, although the court could not determine whether that was a complete list.

Court’s analysis

Discovery from non-parties is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which incorporates the scope of discovery permitted by Rule 26(b). Rule 26 requires a court to limit discovery when the requested information can be obtained from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

The court emphasized that non-parties are entitled to extra protection from discovery burdens. It declined to compel Monterey County to conduct a search because Brown could seek the identities of any remaining deceased people from CDCR. The court treated CDCR as a more convenient and less burdensome source because it was already a party to the case.

Disposition

The court denied Brown’s motion to compel a response without prejudice. Because discovery remained open, Brown could pursue the subpoena again if CDCR’s discovery responses failed to provide any outstanding names after Brown made a vigorous effort to obtain that information. Monterey County had represented that it was willing to search for responsive documents if given the names.

The court declined to rule at that time on Brown’s other requests. If Brown and Monterey County could not resolve those requests informally, they could file a joint discovery letter after a thorough meeting and discussion. The court also declined to decide Monterey County’s argument that the subpoena was procedurally defective because Monterey County provided no supporting authority. The order dispensed with docket entry 19. Judge Alex Tse issued the order.