# Appendix — Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0281%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 426 U.S. 394 ## Text APPENDIZ JUL 25 1975 MICHAEL ROCAK, JA_CLERE | In the Supreme Court OF THE United States OcToBer Tern. 1974 No. 74-1023 Henry W. Kerr, et al., Petitioners, VS. UNITED StaTes District Court, NORTHERN DisTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, JOHN VAN GELDERN, et al., Real Parties in Interest. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed February 15, 1975 Certiorari granted May 27, 1975 PERNAU -WALSH PRINTING CO.- 5862 MISSION STREET - SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94108 Subject Index Chronological list of Relevant Docket Entries .............. 2 Plaintiff's Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 15, DT, ‘Kdisentdhus abueetitadtanesdenndaeengndnsadscance 8 Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents filed in the I I I i a ts ea 51 Defendants’. Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, filed in the district court November 30, Dt: siduhdiuedaith dhadannnttanntndnsapenebetnbedhecave 57 Pi.. >tiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion For an Order Com- pelling Discovery and Memorandum of Points and Au- thorities in Support of Motion, filed in the district court Pe Ss OE CdAseSedkewRWes évederendccnoudeneseces 76 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents, filed in the district court March 25, 1974 ............... 147 Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Produe- tion of Documents, filed in the district court April 1, 1974 197 Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations filed in the dis- CD GI I Sk, TED cede cccccccsctcccscectcosess 216 Defendants’ Notice of Intent to Seek Review of Magistrate's Decision and Statement of Objections, filed in the district GUE BE Ge TOE Se cecccccccnscccescaccetastcccese 217 Defendants’ Request for Review of Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations of April 24, 1974, filed in the dis- OS GU Be GE NUD 6kvcnedecccensnvdiites cccscacece 220 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery, and Plaintiffs’ Mem- orandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Dis- covery filed in the district court May 15, 1974 ........... 232 Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery, filed in the district court June 3, 1974.. 247 Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Sup- port of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Request for Review of Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendatiuns, filed in the district court June 5, 1974 ................. 261 ii Sussect Inpex Page Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations filed in the dis- Coles comm Game BR, BOGS ccccccccccccctccscccccadescees 273 Defendants’ Notice of Intent to Seek Review of Magistrate’s Decision of June 11, 1974 and Statement of Objections, filed in the district court June 17, 1974 ..........66-0005. 273 District court’s order adopting, with modifications, the Magis- trate’s Findings and Recommendations of April 24, 1974, filed June 20, 1974 ...... Sean eens eeeeeeneneseeeteetes 276 Notice of Plaintiffs’ Request for Review of Magistrate’s De- cision and Statement of Objections, and Plaintiffs’ Memo- randum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof, filed in the district court June 24, 1974 ......... poéebesecders 276 Defendants’ Request for Review of Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations of June 11, 1974, filed in the district Gs Gs Gad GR, FHSS 00sec cetcdccescecvtbencesiccsicsec 287 Plaintiffs’ amendment of pleading (Amendment of the Com- plaint) filed in the district court June 26, 1974........... 294 Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition and Ap- plication for Stay of Part of Order, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit June 26, SIRE, Tih. TG ov te dancesecsvedetsseddsesdécacsstese 298 Defendants’ Answer To Plaintiffs’ Complaint As Amended, filed in the district court July 23, 1974 ................. 334 Petitioners’ Supplemental Application for Stay of Part of District Court’s Order, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit in No. 74-2206 on August GO FINO cocvcccnsccccsesdeccbccccssoosenessdsnoceseccs 363 District court’s diseovery Order, filed August 12, 1974 ...... 367 Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in No. 74-2206, filed August 15, 1974 ............. 368 Order of the District Court Determining That The Action Is Maintainable As A Class Action, filed August 1, 1974 ..... 369 Respondents’ [Iteal Parties in Interest] Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit in No. 74-2206 on August 30, GEE késccdccncesesenesseegentarsastesepeabesunnsaien 371 Sussect InpEx iii Page Petitioners’ Reply to Respondents’ Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in No. 74-2206 on September “lg ible uieieieli Taree Sprites 424 Order of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit in No. 74-2206, filed September 20, 1974 ..............4.. 445 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion For Enforcement, Clarification and Sanctions, filed in the distriet court Octo- OP Ge UE ob a0 as bene 0 Os ood boeeeh ses eceeds caceesess 446 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enforcement, Clarification and Sanctions, ete., filed in the district court ET Te EE Sade betbbedbverorcbissrcccscocceoeses 470 Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enforcement, Clarification, and Sanctions, filed in the district court October 29, 1974 ..............020065 542 Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Op- position to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enforcement, Clarification, and Sanctions, filed in the district court October 31,1974 561 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Modification of Aur ast 12, 1974 Order, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, filed in the district court re Te. Ts sccdevicdetdbeddaeebee ceebecste aces 569 Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Modification of August 12, 1974 Order and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Modification of said order, ete., filed in the district CURES Fe Ge GPO be Kectdnacctbecedeserensec cece 590 Order of the District Court filed December 3, 1974.......... 647 Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition, Applica- tion for Stay of Diseovery Order and Notice of Related ease, Application for Immediate Stay, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in No. 74-3392 i MD oo 055865590 660Rs 0005 60 coed eeeese 651 Letter from B. E. Bergesen, III to Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals dated December 16, 1974 in response to petition for writ of mandamus in Action No, 74-3392 ..... 692 iv Sussect InpEx Page Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit in No. 74-3392, filed December 13, 1974 staying dis- trict court order of December 3, 1974 pending further con- sideration of petition for writ of mandamus ...........++> 698 Order of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit filed in No, 74-3392 on December 18, 1974 denying the petition for writ of mandamus and vacating the stay order 699 Letter of Karl 8S. Mayer to Clerk of the Court of Appeals dated December 19, 1974 in response to letter of Mr. Ber- gesen dated December 16, 1974 in No, 74-3392 ........55. 700 Order of Supreme Court of the United States in No, A-546, dated December 31, 1974 staying part of district court order of December 3, 1974 ...... 6c c ccc cree ween ee enee 706 Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit in No, 74-2206, filed January 17, 1975 ........... 707 Order of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit in No. 74-2206 staying issuance of mandate to Feb- ruary 17, 1975 and pending the disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari filed by that date, filed January 27, errr re er ee eee ee 721 Order of the Supreme Court of the United States in A-546 dated February 1, 1975 continuing the stay order dated December 31, 1974 pending the disposition of a timely filed petition for writ of certiorari .... 0.6.66 c eee eens 723 Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit in No. 74-2206 staying issuance of mandate to February 28, 1975 and pending the disposition of a peti- tion for writ of certiorari filed by that date, filed February OD, BED cvccevecccwestscdoccecdcedsncccistetadeussees 724 —_—— APPENDIX Sn the Supreme Court OF THE United States October Term, 1974 No. 74-1023 --------—_— Henry W. Kerg, et al., Petitioners, vs. Untrtep States District Court, NortHErN District oF CaLirornia, Respondent, JOHN VAN GeLpERN, et al., Real Parties in Interest. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit —=—=ssoeee CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES November 15, 1972 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. December 26, 1972 (USDC)—Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed. February 13, 1973 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss filed. March 1, 1973 (USDC)—Defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss filed. March 8, 1973 (USDC)—Order denying defend- ants’ motion to dismiss filed. March 19, 1973 (USDC)—Defendants’ motion to amend Order denying motion to dismiss certifying questions for interlocutory appeal filed. April 2, 1973 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion to amend Order certifying ques- tion for interlocutory appeal filed. April 13, 1973 (USDC)—Order denying defend- ants’ motion to amend Order to certify an interlocu- tory appeal filed. May 15, 1973 (USDC)—Copy of Order of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (No. 73-1761) denying defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition filed. June 1, 1973 (USDC)—Copy of Order of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (No. _— ; — at i A A A ll OE 3 73-1761) denying defendants’ petition for rehearing filed. June 21, 1973 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ request for pro- duction of documents filed. N ovember 30, 1973 (USDC)—Defendants’ answer to plaintiffs’ request for production of documents filed. March 11, 1974 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further answers to interrogatories and pro- duction of documents filed. March 25, 1974 (USDC)—Defendants’ opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for an order compelling further answers to interrogatories and further production of documents filed. April 1, 1974 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ reply to defend- ants’ opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for order com- pelling further discovery filed. April 24, 1974 (USDC)—Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations on plaintiffs’ motion for order compelling further discovery filed. April 30, 1974 (USDC)—Defendants’ notice of in- tent to review magistrate’s decision and statement of objections filed. May 6, 1974 (USDC)—Defendants’ request for re- view of magistrate’s decision filed. May 15, 1974 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ motion to com- pel further discovery filed. June 3, 1974 (USDC)—Defendants’ response in op- position to plaintiffs’ motion to compel further dis- covery filed. 4 June 5, 1974 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of opposition to defendants’ request for re- view of magistrate’s decision filed. June 11, 1974 (USDC)—Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations filed. June 17, 1974 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ request for documents filed. June 17, 1974 (USDC)—Defendants’ notice of in- tent to review magistrate’s decision and statement of objections filed. June 20, 1974 (USDC)—Order adopting magis- trate’s Findings and Recommendations, except for modifications as noted, filed. June 24, 1974 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ request for re- view of magistrate’s decision filed. June 26, 1974 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ motion to com- pel production of documents filed. June 26, 1974 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ amendment to complaint filed. June 26, 1974 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition and application for stay filed. July 15, 1974 (USDC)—Defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ motion to compel further discovery filed. July 16, 1974 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Petitioners’ letter of additional authorities received. July 19, 1974 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Letter of real party in interest responding to letter of petitioner dated July 16, 1974 received. ——_§ > « | 5 July 23, 1974 (USDC)—Defendants’ answer to complaint as amended filed. August 8, 1974 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Petitioners’ supplemental application for stay filed. August 12, 1974 (USDC)—Order affirming magis- trate’s Findings and Recommendations of June 11 1974, filed. | August 15, 1974 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Order re- quiring an answer to petition for mandamus and ap- plication for stay filed. August 23, 1974 (USDC)—Order determining that action may be maintained as a class action filed. August 30, 1974 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Answer of real party in interest to petition for mandamus filed. September 4, 1974 (USCA, No, 74-2206)—Petition- ers’ reply to answer of real party in interest filed. September 20, 1974 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Order continuing stay and calendaring matter for argument on November 14, 1974, filed. October 21, 1974 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ motion for enforeement, clarification, and sanctions filed. October 24, 1974 (USDC)—Defendants’ opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for enforcement, clarification, and sanctions filed. ; October 29, 1974 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for en- forcement, clarification and sanctions filed. October 30, 1974 (USCA, No. 74-2206 )—Petition- ers’ letter of additional authorities filed. 6 October 31, 1974 (USDC)—Defendants’ reply to plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ opposition to plain- tiffs’ motion for enforcement, clarification, and sanc- tions filed. November 11, 1974 (USDC)—Plaintiffs’ motion for modification of Order of August 12, 1974, filed. November 14, 1974 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Petition for writ of mandamus argued and submitted. November 20, 1974 (USDC)—Defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ motion for modification of Order of Au- gust 12, 1974, filed, December 3, 1974 (USDC)—Order for clarification and enforcement of Order of August 12, 1974, filed. December 13, 1974 (USCA, No. 74-3392)—Petition for writ of mandamus, application for stay, applica- tion for immediate stay filed. December 16, 1974 (USCA, No. 74-3392)—Letter of respondent (real party in interest) in opposition to petition for mandamus received. December 18, 1974 (USCA, No, 74-3392)—Order denying petition for mandamus and vacating stay filed. January 6, 1975 (USDC; USCA, No. 74-3392)— Order of USSC, Mr. Justice Douglas, staying USDC order of December 3, 1974, received.’ 1'This entry, and the entry of February 6, 1975, are made in the Court of Appeals Docket in No. 74-2206. This, however, to be a clerical error as the district court’s of Decem 3 1974, was before the Court of Appeals only in No, 74-3392 and not in No. 74-2206. 7 January 17, 1975 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Opinion denying mandamus and vacating stay filed. January 22, 1975 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Petition- ers’ application for stay of mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari filed. January 27, 1975 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Respond- ents’ (real party in interest) opposition to petition- ers’ motion for stay filed. January 27, 1975 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Order staying mandate to February 17, 1975, pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of cer- tiorari filed. February 6, 1975 (USDC; USCA, No. 74-3392)— Order of USSC, Mr. Justice Douglas, continuing the stay of the USDC order of December 3, 1974, pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari received.” February 12, 1975 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Petition- ers’ motion to extend stay of mandate filed. February 13, 1975 (USCA, No. 74-2206)—Order staying mandate to February 28, 1975, and pending disposition of a timely filed petition for writ of cer- tiorari filed. February 15, 1975 (USSC, No. 74-1023)—Petition for writ of certiorari filed. May 27, 1975 (USSC, No. 74-1023)—Order grant- ing petition for writ of certiorari. 2See footnote 1, supra. 8 [Designation of Attorneys for Plaintiffs Omitted in Printing] In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California C-72-2088 SAW John Van Geldern, Danny Jones, Charles Edward | Van Nort, Billy oy 2 Lewis, Robert Newton Gardner, Jr., James Murrin, George Chatfield, individually and on behalf of all others simi- larly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Henry W. Kerr, Curtis O. Lynum, Walter A. Gordon, Jr., Manley J. Bowler, Leland M. Ed- man, James H. Hoover, Charles E. Brown, Daniel R. Lopez, individually and in their offi- cial capacities as members of the California Adult Authority, Joseph A. Spangler, individ- ually and in his official capacity as Administra- tive officer of the California Adult Authority, Raymond K. Procunier, individually and in his official capacity as Director of Corrections of the State of California; their agents, employ- ees, and successors in interest, Defendants. ; [ Filed Nov. 15, 1972] CoMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CrviL RIGHTS, FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Jurisdiction 1. This is a civil action brought by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated under Section 1343 of Title 28 of the United States Code, to redress the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities secured to them by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitu- tion of the United States. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988 and 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the unconstitutional conduct of de- fendants complained of herein. Nature of the Case 2.a. Plaintiffs and their classes are inmates in various California state prisons. They challenge the hearing procedures whereby defendants, members of the California Adult Authority and the Department of Corrections, grant, deny, or rescind parole, fix and re-fix sentences, and whereby they purport to adjudi- cate infractions of prison rules. Because these deci- sions involve fundamental rights of liberty and result in grievous loss for thousands of California prisoners by depriving them of that liberty, the process of making these decisions must meet the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. b. The statutory and decisional law of California forbids these decisions to be made in an arbitrary manner or in the absence of ‘“‘good cause”. Therefore the Adult Authority and the Department of Corree- tions, pursuant to constitutional and statutory grants 10 of power, have established hearing procedures at which hearings these decisions are made. Where, as here, such hearings are required to be held by both Federal and State law, they must be fair and impartial in the constitutional sense, as is more fully described below. ce. The hearing procedures actually followed by defendant members and administrative officers of the Adult Authority and by the Department of Correc- tions are in fact completely lacking in both procedural and substantive due process, and in rudimentary fair- ness or equity. Hearings held by the Adult Authority are defective in that: (1) Inmates who are to appear before panels of members or representatives of the Adult Author- ity, are not informed as to the material the panel has before it and are absolutely prohibited from reviewing their central file, upon which the Au- thority will in large part base its decision ; (2) Inmates are absolutely prohibited from being represented by retained counsel, nor is counsel ever appointed at the request of an in- digent ; (3) Hearings average about ten minutes, al- though the mediar. time is considerably less. De- cisions are made in less than five minutes, and without any extended or meaningful discussion of the case; (4) No written statements of the reasons for decisions or of the evidence relied on are pro- vided the inmate; 11 (5) As more fully alleged in paragraph 16 peti- tioners allege that Adult Authority members have no expertise, are biased, and base their decisions on false, inaccurate, and misleading information. d. Hearings are also conducted by the Department of Corrections. These hearings purport to adjudicate infractions of prison rules. Consequent to such ad- judications prisoners may be punished by transfer, assignment to solitary confinement, permanent re- classification to maximum security sections, and may suffer other loss of the restricted liberty which is available to the general prison population. Reports concerning these alleged infractions are placed in the files of plaintiffs and their class, and said material is reviewed by the Adult Authority; and is often used to deny or rescind parole. e. The hearing procedures employed by Defendant Procunier and the Department of Corrections and the Adult Authority in their said hearings are constitu- tionally infirm because they are not designed to be nor are they effective to expose and develop the criti- cal facts upon which the Department of Corrections and the Adult Authority’s decisions must be made, or to apply to such facts the appropriate criteria in order to reach a rational and correct decision as a matter of law. As a direct result of these defective procedures, the decisions routinely reached by the De- partment of Corrections and the Adult Authority are so arbitrary, discriminatory and otherwise illegal as to violate plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 12 f. The combined procedures of the Department of Corrections and the Adult Authority result not in a correctional system, but in a chaotic limbo where prisoners, including plaintiffs and their class, must spend unknowable and unlimited numbers of years of imprisonment soliciting the favor and humoring the impulse, whim, caprice, and mood of correctional staff, Adult Authority members and representatives, and parole officers. False, biased, prejudicial, and distorted allegations from inmates, associates on the outside during parole periods, correctional staff, un- qualified medical assistants, and others, are accumu- lated in the prisoners’ central files and accorded weight impossible to measure or ascertain in the de- cisions of the Adult Authority and the Department of Corrections. g. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek declaratory and in- junctive relief to require that defendants henceforth afford plaintiffs and their class fundamental due process safeguards in the proceedings and hearings which determine the contents of the central files at which the Adult Authority fixes or refuses to fix the terms of sentences and grants or denies parole, re- scinds or revokes parole, and at those hearings which are conducted to review adverse determinations within the administrative channels of the Adult Authority itself. The minimum due process safeguards to as- sure evidentiary integrity to these hearings and pro- cedures include the right to: 1) receive timely notice of all alleged viola- tions of parole or infractions of prison rules which may lead to the denying of sentence deter- 13 mination or parole, or the rescinding or revoking of parole; 2) conduct a timely review of the entire central file and all other documents which will be avail- able to the Adult Authority or Department of Corrections in reaching their decisions; 3) adduce favorable evidence and cross-examine adverse witnesses and persons submitting adverse reports at disciplinary hearings and at Adult Authority hearings; 4) be represented by retained counsel at the hearings conducted by the Adult Authority, and be represented at disciplinary hearings in the manner detailed in the Opinion of the Court in Clutchette v. Procunter, in the order of June 21, 1971 (328 F. Supp. 767, Northern District of California) ; 5) be heard by an impartial and unbiased panel or official who has had no connection with any of the alleged violations or other operative facts, including the prisoners’ original conviction or earlier revocations, upon which the Adult Au- thority’s decision will turn. In this connection, a procedure is required, and must be evolved, which furnishes the name of the Adult Authority representatives or members who are scheduled to hear whatever type of hearing is pending in sufficient time to permit the prisoner to exercise an option to disqualify a representative or mem- ber for previous involvements with the prisoner’s case, or for personal bias or prejudice from pre- 14 vious relationships with said representative or member ; 6) be furnished with a verbatim transcript of the hearing, and be furnished with a written statement of the reason for an adverse determi- nation, and the evidence upon which it was based ; 7) be represented in person or by counsel at any additional appellate or administrative review proceedings conducted by the Adult Authority with due process procedures appropriate to a re- viewing agency. Parties 3. Plaintiffs John Van Geldgern,* Danny Jones, Charles Edward Van Nort, Billy Ray Lewis, and Robert Newton Gardner, Jr. are prisoners in the custody of the Department of Corrections of the State of California (hereinafter ‘‘The Department”) pres- ently confined at the California Men’s Colony at San Luis Obispo (hereinafter ‘‘CMC”), Plaintiff James Murrin is a prisoner in the custody of the Depart- ment, presently confined at California Conservation Camp #5 at Marimonte, and previously at Sierra Conservation Center at Jamestown, California (here- inafter “Jamestown”). Plaintiff George Chatfield is a prisoner in the custody of the Department presently confined at California State Prison at San Quentin. 4. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action, individual’'y and on behalf of all others similarly *No chrnges in spelling, syntax, punctuation, ete. have been made by printer. 15 situated. The class is divided into subclasses defined as follows: Class A All inmates in the custody of the Department who have had, or will have in the future, a term which was previously fixed and a parole date which was previously set by the Adult Authority rescinded by said Authority prior to the date on which said in- mates would have been released on parole. Class A is represented by plaintiffs Jones, Van Nort, and Murrin. Class B All inmates in the custody of the Department who have had their parole revoked by the Authority pur- suant to the procedures complained of herein, or will be subject to the revocation procedures of the Au- thority complained of herein, Class B is represented by plaintiffs Lewis, Gardner, Van Geldern, and Chat- field. Class C All inmates in the custody of the Department, whether they have been paroled or revoked or not, who appear before the Adult Authority for purposes of determining whether the Authority will fix or re- fuse to fix their terms and grant or deny them parole, pursuant to the procedures complained of herein. Class C is represented by all the named plaintiffs herein. 16 As to each subclass of persons, it is so numerous that the joinder of all members is impracticable; there are questions of law and fact common to the subclass; the claims of the named plaintiffs herein are typical of the claims of the subclass, and plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the other members of the subclass. In addition, the prose- cution of separate actions by individual members of each subclass would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members thereof which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the in- terests of the other members not parties to the adju- dications, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; and, the parties op- posing each subclass have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the subclass, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the subclass as a whole. 5. Defendants Henry W. Kerr, Curtis O. Lynum, Manley J. Bowler, Walter A. Gordon, Jr., Leland M. Edman, James H. Hoover, Charles E. Brown, and Daniel R. Lopez are members of the Adult Authority, and defendant Joseph A. Spangler is the administra- tive officer of the Adult Authority. In such capacities said defendants are responsible for designing and carrying out constitutional, lawful, and fair proce- dures to determine, inter alia, whether or not to: A) fix an inmate’s term and grant parole B) rescind an earlier decision to fix an inmate’s term and grant parole, prior to the date upon which he is actually released on parole 17 C) revoke an inmate’s parole D) review said proceedings and determinations upon request of an adversely affected inmate. Defendant Spangler is responsible for the implemen- tation of the responsibilities of the defendant mem- bers as hereinabove described. Defendant Spangler has in fact assisted in making policy, designing pro- cedures, making de facto determinations critical to the decisions made by the Adult Authority, and in in- terpreting the laws under which the Adult Authority operates to deny plaintiffs and their classes and sub- classes fundamental fairness and due process of law. Defendant Spangler is the chief staff officer and han- dies all administrative functions as delegated and determined by the Authority. He is the official keeper of the Authority’s records, and liaison officer with defendant Procunier and the staff of the Department of Corrections. 6. Defendant Raymond K. Procunier is the Di- rector of the Department and in such capacity is re- sponsible for the overall operation of the Department, the promulgation and enforcement of rules governing the confinement of inmates subject to the custody of the Department, including the proceedings had on disciplinary charges, and the keeping of central files relied on by the Adult Authority in making the de- terminations described in paragraph 5, supra, and the safety of each such inmate. 7. Defendants are sued both individually and in their official capacities. In depriving plaintiffs of their constitutional rights, as set forth hereinafter, 18 defendants and each of them have acted and refused to act under color of the statutes, ordinances, regu- lations, customs and usages of the State of California. Facts 8. Introduction As to the named plaintiffs, at all times herein mentioned defendant Adult Authority members and administrative officer and their agents, representatives and employees were routinely conduct- ing parole consideration hearings, sentence fixing hearings, hearings or preceedings to determine whether or not to revoke or rescind parole, and hear- ings to impose serious disciplinary sanctions through- out the various institutions of the Department of Corrections in the State of California. Plaintiff Billy Ray Lewis (representing subclasses B & C) 9.a. In March of 1972 plaintiff Billy Ray Lewis was released on parole. His parole plan was based upon his working as a janitor in San Jose. Plaintiff commenced said employment, and approximately one month after his release married the woman to whom he had been engaged during his imprisonment. Shortly after their marriage plaintiff Lewis and his wife experienced a series of marital difficulties. Plain- tiff and his wife quarreled frequently and on more than one occasion his wife threatened to have his parole violated without cause and solely so plaintiff would be returned to prison. Eventually, plaintiff moved out of their bedroom and because of their growing incompatibility ceased having sexual rela- tions with his wife. 19 b. On or about October 18, 1971, plaintiff’s wife locked the door to their house, barred plaintiff’s entry thereto, and demanded that he return later in the day to gather his belongings and that he move out. When plaintiff returned he was arrested by the Police and charged with the crime against nature based on a complaint allegedly made by plaintiff’s wife to his parole officer falsely accusing plaintiff of having sex- ual relations with a dog. ec. Plaintiff’s wife denied and now denies having lodged such a complaint. Plaintiff is unaware whether his wife’s denial of having lodged the charge is true or whether she in fact lodged the complaint pursuant to her earlier threats to cause his parole to be re- voked. In either case, said charges were and are complete fabrications and totally false, and plaintiff’s wife so informed the Santa Clara Public Defender who was appointed to represent plaintiff in court. All criminal charges against plaintiff were accordingly dismissed. d. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff did every- thing in his power to preserve a difficult and deterio- rating personal relationship with his wife under adverse conditions caused by his wife’s quarrelsome nature, by her obesity, and by her constant threats to revoke his parole. e. Notwithstanding the above, and notwithstand- ing the fact that plaintiff’s wife informed the Adult Authority that her alleged complaint was untrue, plaintiff was returned to prison and in December of that year appeared before the Adult Authority on parole violation charges which were based entirely upon the same charge which had been dismissed by the court. At the hearing plaintiff was not permitted to rebut the charge against him, or to present any witnesses or other evidence to prove the falsity of the charges. Although plaintiff pled ‘‘not guilty” to the charge, the Adult Authority found him guilty, or- dered that plaintiff undergo a psychiatric examina- tion and obtain a ‘‘psych clearance” prior to his next parole hearing in May of 1972. Subsequently, plain- tiff was duly examined and given a psychiatric clearance. f. On or about April 26, 1972, plaintiff again ap- peared before the Adult Authority for parole consid- eration and sentence determination. On this occasion the Adult Authority refused to determine plaintiff’s sentence or to release him on parole because of sus- picion of sodomizing a dog and on a charge of “‘lewd behavior” and upon the further ground that he re- fused to admit that he was guilty. Again, plaintiff was denied the right to be represented by an attorney who was willing and able to appear in his behalf; and he was again denied the opportunity to present evidence or to rebut the false charges against him, At the hearing plaintiff was denied further parole con- sideration until November of 1972. g. At each of the foregoing hearings before the Adult Authority the panel members acted upon in- . formation which was absolutely false, and which re- ¥ quired sophisticated assessment and consideration of plaintiff’s contentions. The Adult Authority revoked plaintiff’s parole and thereafter refused to fix his term or grant him parole, all without good cause. Plaintiff Danny Jones (representing subclasses A and C ) 10.a. In February of 1970, an Adult Authority panel which included defendant Lynum fixed two con- current terms which plaintiff Danny Jones was then serving, set a parole release date of October 1, 1970, and assigned plaintiff Jones to the department’s Work Furlough program. Certain agents, representatives and employees of defendant Procunier, constituting members of the Classification Committee at the Cali- fornia Institution for Men at Chino (hereinafter “Chino”) where plaintiff Jones was then confined, opposed the work furlough assignment, and arranged to prevent Jones from being so assigned. Plaintiff Jones saw no way to appeal the Department’s frus- tration of the assignment ordered by the Adult Authority other than purposefully incurring a disci- plinary report in order to appear again before de- fendant Lynum. This plaintiff did, and when defendant Lynum learned of plaintiff’s situation, he reversed the action of the said Classification Com- mittee and insisted that plaintiff be assigned to the Work Furlough program. Thereafter, two of the said Committee members told plaintiff explicitly that any possible excuse would be seized upon by them to bring about the rescission of plaintiff’s parole date. b. Plaintiff Jones subsequently obtained a job and then a promotion with Carson Industries, a trailer manufacturer. Certain of defendant Procunier’s agents, representatives and employees continued to plan actively to obtain rescission of plaintiff’s parole date, and some made bets among themselves that he would not be able to complete the program without having his parole date rescinded. Plaintiff Jones withstood the tensions and difficulties imposed by this continuing attitude, and made an excellent adjust- ment in the Work Furlough program and established a warm relationship with a woman his own age. c. On or about September 26, 1970, only five days before plaintiff Jones was due to be released on pa- role, he returned to the prison quite tired from a hard day’s work, and went to sleep at about 8:30 p.m. Several hours later, about four guards, agents, representatives and employees of defendant Pro- cunier, went through plaintiff’s wing and made their count on plaintiff’s tier by loudly slamming the doors of the various cells. A few minutes later, the guards returned to plaintiff’s cell and repeated the door banging routine, whereupon plaintiff, violently awak- ened from the beginnings of sleep, verbally protested this action to the guards involved. Although plain- tiff’s protest had been temperate and reasonable, the guards told him that they were going to lock him up for insubordination. Later, before the Watch Lieu- tenant, they altered their story to falsely charge plain- tiff with threatening an officer. This Lieutenant listened to plaintiff’s version of the incident and, noting that he had only five days to go before release on parole, told plaintiff to return to his cell and to continue his regular work schedule. ad. On or about September 29, 1970, upon return- ing to the institution from work, plaintiff was sum- marily placed in chains, taken to the Custody Sergeant’s office, and later placed in isolation, al- though no reason was given for this treatment. About 10 days later, several days after plaintiff was to have been released on parole, he was taken before a disci- plinary committee composed of the same staff mem- bers who had opposed his participation in the Work Furlough program and charged with ‘‘threatening an officer” and ‘‘disobeying orders”. About a week later, plaintiff appeared before two members of the Adult Authority for an interview which lasted less than 2 minutes. Three days later he received official notice that his parole date had been rescinded, and that he would be scheduled for an appearance before the Adult Authority in March of 1971, for further parole consideration. Petitioner was then transferred to Folsom Prison. e. In March of 1971 petitioner appeared before the Adult Authority and received a new parole date of December 6, 1971. Although plaintiff opposed par- ticipation in the Work Furlough program, based upon his earlier experience, he was nonetheless trans- ferred to said program, and to the same part of Chino where he had earlier had his difficulties with staff. f. Upon entering the Work Furlough program, petitioner obtained employment with the same em- ployer and once again, working and saving diligently, was able to establish credit, buy a car, and commence norma! relationships with people on the outside world. However, about a month later plaintiff was summarily removed from the Work Furlough program pending 24 “investigation”, which apparently continued for the next five days, whereupon plaintiff was told by staff that the investigation had ‘‘cleared” him and that he was being reinstated in the Work Furlough program. To this date plaintiff does not know what the reason for the ‘‘investigation” was. However, upon return- ing to his place of employment piaintiff’s supervisor told him that he could not afford to hire people who would be arbitrarily suspended from the program for five days, as plaintiff had, and that he would there- fore terminate plaintiff’s employment and thereafter refrain from hiring any prisoners from the Work Furlough program. Approximately five days later plaintiff found part-time work cleaning up mobile homes. g. Several months later, plaintiff was mistakenly arrested as a prowler, and was sentenced to serve 30 day in jail by a Municipal Court Judge in Corona for trespassing. On or about December 7, 1971, plaintiff was given a hearing before defendants Kerr and Edman, who told him that if they released him he would simply stick guns in people’s face and bur-- glarize, apparently referring to the trespassing inci- dent (in which the police report of this incident clearly stated that plaintiff was not armed.) Shortly thereafter, plaintiff received notice that his parole date had been rescinded, his sentences redetermined, and his parole release date reset to June 5, 1972, condi- tioned upon plaintiff receiving no more disciplinary reports. h. In February of 1972, a prison guard, an agent, representative and employee of defendant Procunier, 25 submitted a falsified disciplinary report concerning plaintiff, accusing him of an insubordinate attitude. As a result, plaintiff’s case was referred back to the Adult Authority, which again rescinded his parole date and transferred him to CMC. i. At CMC plaintiff Jones appeared before the Adult Authority in May of 1972, for a hearing which lasted approximately 90 seconds. At this hearing the Adult Authority declined to determine plaintiff’s sen- tence or to grant parole, and scheduled his next hear- ing for December of 1972. j. In none of the Adult Authority hearings re- ferred to in this paragraph was plaintiff permitted to know the information upon which the panel mem- bers based their decision. During the last 4 such hearings the Adult Authority members had before them information which was in material part either false or misleading, yet plaintiff was not permitted to rebut this information by cross-examining the per- sons who had made the statements involved, nor was he permitted to present any evidence in his behalf. At none of the hearings was plaintiff permitted to be represented by counsel. Plaintiff Charles Edward Van Nort (representing subclasses A & C) lla. In May of 1967, plaintiff Charles Edward Van Nort was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for violation of California Penal Code § 245, which sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the unexpired time on a previous conviction. On or about May 20, 1970, plaintiff Charles Van Nort appeared 26 before the Adult Authority which fixed his terms and granted him a parole, to become effective on Decem- ber 1, 1970. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff was assigned to the Work Furlough program at Chino, and began work at the Mayfair Market in Montclair, California. b. On or about November 11, 1970, at approxi- mately 5:45 a.m., several officers from the Montclair Police Department, together with several members of the Chino and/or parole office staff, approached plain- tiff and placed him under arrest. Plaintiff immedi- ately requested to be informed of the charge against him, but the arresting officials refused to supply this information. Plaintiff then requested the assistance of counsel and also permission to make a telephone call, but both requests were denied. Plaintiff was summarily taken into custody and returned to Chino, where he was placed in segregation and held incom- municado. c. Plaintiff remained in segregation for approxi- mately a week, during which time he was interrogated by a Mr. Smith, who refused to inform him of the charges against him, refused to afford him the oppor- tunity to consult with counsel, or even to make a tele- phone call. Officials at Chino would tell him only that his “case” had been “referred to the Los An- geles District Attorney,” leaving plaintiff to believe that he was being charged with a felony. Accordingly, he remained silent except for the numerous demands which he made for information concerning the charges against him and the assistance of counsel. d. On or about November 20, 1970, having recently been released to the general population of the Recep- 27 tion Guidance Center at Chino, plaintiff was brought before a disciplinary committee of that prison and or- dered to enter a “plea” to the “charge”, although of- ficials still refused to disclose the nature of said charge. Over plaintiff’s objection, the hearing officer entered a plea of guilty as charged and entered a recommendation to the Adult Authority that plain- tiff’s parole date of December 1, 1970, be rescinded. In addition, plaintiff was forced to sign a document which purported to set forth the nature of his “of- fense”, ~ e. On or about December 22, 1970, plaintiff ap- peared before an Adult Authority panel at which time his parole date was officially rescinded. At no time during the hearing was plaintiff allowed to see the report against him or to present evidence in his favor; instead, he was told only that the “incident” was under investigation by the Los Angeles County District At- torney. On or about January 11, 1971, plaintiff re- ceived official notification of the Adult Authority’s action, and on or about January 19, 1971, plaintiff received official notification that he had been desig- nated a “Special Interest Case” by the Adult Author- ity. f. Since that time plaintiff has upon many oc- casions requested officials of the Adult Authority and the Department to inform him of the “crime” which he had allegedly committed, but on every occasion this information was either flatly refused or else plaintiff was told that the case was still being investicated by the Los Angeles County District Attorney. Subse- quent to the rescinding of plaintiff’s parole date, he 28 was twice appeared before the Adult Authority. On each occasion he has been denied parole solely on the grounds of the alleged “crime” which was the cause for rescinding his parole date in December of 1970. g. Plaintiff has never been presented with a state- ment of the evidence or charges against him by de- fendants and has never been shown police reports or parole agent reports of said evidence or charges by defendants. It was not until May, 1972, in a Return filed by the Attorney General of the State of Califor- nia to a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in California State Courts by Plaintiff, that Plaintiff ever learned the nature of the charges against him. The information contained in said Return is false and inaccurate and in fact does not indicate that any “crime” was committed by defendant (sic) while at liberty or that any crime formed the basis for his pa- role rescission. Rather, said information indicates that plaintiff is accused of having been absent from work for a few hours on an occasion when he was ill, and during a period when there was no requirement that he report hourly to the Work Furlough Center, and further that a bottle of whiskey allegedly belonging to plaintiff—but in fact belonging to his father—was found in plaintiff’s automobile. h. In none of the Adult Authority hearings re- ferred to in this paragraph was plaintiff permitted to know the information upon which panel members based their decision. During all of the hearings com- mencing with the proceedings leading to rescission, the rescission itself, and the subsequent denials of parole, the Adult Authority members had before them 29 information which was in material part either false or misleading, yet plaintiff was not permitted to rebut this information by cross-examining the persons who had made the statements involved, nor was he permit- ted to present any evidence in his behalf other than to make a statement. At none of the hearings was plaintiff permitted to be represented by counsel. As a result of the rescission of his parole, plaintiff has been classified in a special category and required by the Adult Authority to complete a special program enti- tled “Stress Assessment Unit” before even becoming eligible for favorable parole consideration. Correc- tional staff members at CMC, informed plaintiff Van Nort in April of 1972 that he must dismiss all litiga- tion concerning his parole rescission or be taken out of the said Stress Assessment Union, without participa- tion in which he cannot be eligible for parole consider- ation. Challenging any action taken by correctional or Adult Authority staff is regarded as evidence of lack of rehabilitation, and the Stress Assessment. Unit specializes in probings of acceptance of guilt and wrong- doing. Plaintiff is informed and believes and there- fore alleges, that his parole has been denied since it was rescinded, in whole or in substantial part, because he has sought to challenge the proceedings and to ob- tain judicial review of them. Plaintiff Robert Newton Gardner, Jr. (representing subclasses B and C ) 12.a. In or about March of 1967 plaintiff Robert Newton Gardner, Jr. was released on parole, and his sentence, as fixed by the Adult Authority, was scheduled to expire on or about March 18, 1960. On or about December 11, 1959, a hearing of which plain- tiff was unaware, was held by the Adult Authority, at which time plaintiff’s parole was suspended. On or about May 30, 1960, some 9 weeks subsequent to plain- tiff’s discharge date, his parole was revoked and he was returned to the custody of the Department. b. On or about February 1, 1971, plaintiff was again released on parole. On or about March 17, 1971, plaintiff was arrested on charges of assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a firearm by an ex-felon. In September of 1971, plaintiff plead guilty to a violation of California Penal Code §245 (assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury), whereupon the trial judge reduced the offense to a misdemeanor and sentenced plaintiff to serve an amount of County Jail time equa! to time which he had al- ready served, for which credit was given, so that as of the date of sentencing plaintiff had no more time to serve on this charge. At the same time, the trial judge indicated that he believed the offense had arisen out of a family dispute. c. Plaintiff’s parole officer prepared a report con- cerning the foregoing incident. However, plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that said parole officer refused to return the calls of approxi- mately 8 prospective witnesses who wished to give evidence on behalf of plaintiff, three of whom were at- torneys who were knowledgeable about plaintiff’s case. Said report was necessarily, therefore, incomplete, in- adequate, and seriously distorted. 31 d. On or about November 19, 1971, the Adult Au- thority placed plaintiff in the STRU (Short Term Re- lease Unit) Program, the effect of which is generally to make an inmate eligible for parole from 4 to 6 months thereafter. Subsequently, plaintiff appeared before an Adult Authority representative named Hal- derman, whom plaintiff had previously known when Halderman was serving at Folsom Prison, and with whom the plaintiff did not get alone. When plaintiff attempted to explain the circumstances surrounding his misdemeanor conviction, Halderman refused to lis- ten, but instead referred to plaintiff as a “trouble- maker” and recommended that plaintiff’s parole be revoked and that he be removed from the STRU Pro- gram. On January 5, 1972, the Adult Authority, during an ex parte hearing, approved the recommenda- tions of Halderman. Plaintiff was not permitted to be present at this meeting, nor was he allowed to be rep- resented by any one of the three attorneys who has requested to appear in his behalf. e. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that a parolee is normally removed from the STRU Program only for cause, that is, for a viola- tion of the rules of the program. Plaintiff, however, had a good record in the STRU Program and was not removed therefrom for having violated any regulation of the Program; rather, plaintiff was removed from the Program without any good cause solely because the Adult Authority representative who presided over his case was personally biased and prejudiced against plaintiff. f. All of the foregoing occurred without plaintiff ever being afforded the right to be heard and present a defense against the charges made, including the right to call witnesses in his own behalf, the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, the right to counsel, and the right to fair and timely notice of his alleged misconduct. Plaintiff John Van Geldern, (representing subclasses B and C) 13.a. In October of 1967 plaintiff John Van Geldern was released on parole. In February of 1969, after being convicted of violating California Penal Code Sections 26104a, and 487, and California Corporations Code Section 25542, plaintiff was re- turned to prison as a parole violator. In April of 1970, plaintiff appeared for the first time before the Adult Authority for purposes of a parole revocation hearing. Plaintiff was charged with violating 12 pa- role conditions, including charges of “moving without permission” and “being a corporation president with- out permission.” At that time plaintiff refused to plead to the charges unless he was first permitted elemental due process rights which would permit him to rebut any false charges in the record. This request was denied, and plaintiff was summarily found guilty of all charges, whereupon his parole revoked. b. In February of 1972, plaintiff appeared before defendants Edman and Bowler for a sentence de- termination and parole release hearing. During the hearing, one of the defendants stated that plaintiff was responsible for defrauding a number of persons connected with plaintiff’s former business venture of approximately $250,000. Plaintiff replied that in the 19 volumes of transcripts from his trial, ample and overwhelming evidence disproved that statement to- tally, and that he had not been responsible for any losses whatsoever. However, plaintiff was not permit- ted to rebut defendants’ totally false statement by other than his own statement, unsupported at the hearing by the evidence which he was not permitted to adduce, Plaintiff Van Geldern did not receive advance notice of these charges nor detailed specifi- cation of them. Plaintiff was not able to have the transcripts considered nor in any other way to furnish evidence rebutting these charges. ce. At the said February, 1972 hearing plaintiff was advised that his case would be submitted to an en bane proceeding before all 8 members of the Adult Authority, assisted by defendant Spangler, at which plaintiff would not be present. In late May of 1972, the Adult Authority meeting en bane and in the absence of plaintiff, refused to determine his sentence or to grant parole. d. Although plaintiff does not know the full con- tents of his central file, upon which sentence fixing and parole determinations are substantially based, he is informed and believes and therefore alleges that his central files contain false, inaccurate, misleading, dis- torted and prejudicial contents, and that these con- tents formed, in substantial part, the basis for the May 1972 parole denial. Plaintiff has on many oc- 34 casions requested to review his central file, specifically in March of 1970 and December of 1971, and prior to the filing of this case plaintiff’s attorneys herein made formal request to review said file, in order to ascertain the exact contents thereof, and to correct the false and misleading information contained therein, but all such requests have been denied by defendants. Plain- tiff Van Geldern also requested to be represented by counsel at the Adult Authority hearings determining revocation and reconsideration for sentence-fixing and parole, to present evidence in his behalf at said hear- ings, and to confront and examine those submitting charges and allegations against him at said hearings. All said requests have been denied by defendants. Plaintiff James Murrin (representing subclasses A and C) 14.2. On or about February 19, 1970 plaintiff James Murrin was sentenced to a term of five years to life on a conviction of violation of Penal Code Section 211. On or about May 31, 1972 plaintiff Murrin appeared before a panel of the Adult Au- thority at the Correctional Training Facility at Sole- dad, California, and his term was fixed at six years, with parole granted effective April 2, 1973. At said time the Adult Authority stipulated that plaintiff Murrin be placed in a prison camp as an auto me- chanic, Plaintiff Murrin subsequently applied for camp placement as an auto mechanic and received an assignment as auto mechanic in keeping with the Adult Authority’s parole stipulation. Plaintiff Mur- rin was consequently transferred to the Sierra Con- servation Camp at Jamestown, California. Shortly after his arrival plaintiff Murrin was placed in a physical fitness training program (Hereinafter “P.F.T.”) which he believed was a requisite for the camp “Special Skills Auto Mechanic” program stip- ulated by the Adult Authority. He shortly thereafter learned, however, that the P.F.T. program was un- related to the special skills auto mechanic program, and he also found the P.F'.T. program extremely diffi- cult physically and ultimately impossible for him to perform. He thus asked to be re-assigned out of P.F.T. and to be placed in the special skills auto me- chanie camp as per the Adult Authority stipulation and pursuant to the reason for his transfer to James- town. His request was refused b. On or about July 12, 1972 and again on July 24, 1972 plaintiff Murrin was given CDC 115 dis- ciplinary reports, subsequent to appearances before a staff member of the Jamestown facility. On or about August 7, 1972 prison authorities at Jamestown, agents and employees of defendant Procunier, placed plaintiff Murrin on the special proceedings review calendar of the Adult Authority. On or about Sep- tember 7, 1972 the Adult Authority rescinded its de- termination of May 31, 1972 fixing plaintiff Mur- rin’s term and granting parole. Plaintiff Mur- rin’s parole date of April 1973 was taken from him and he was placed on the representatives calendar for April 1973. The Adult Authority based its said action on the two disciplinary proceedings of July 12 and July 24, 1972. On or about October 31, 1972 plaintiff Murrin’s request for rehearing before the Adult Authority was denied. At neither the disciplinary hearings, nor the Adult Authority proceedings herein- above referred to was plaintiff Murrin permitted to introduce evidence, review his file, have representa- tion of counsel or counsel-substitute, nor have his contention that he was sent to Jamestown for auto- mechanic training and not for the physical fitness training program which was unrelated to the auto mechanic training program fairly considered. Subse- quent to the rescinding of plaintiff’s date and the de- nial of rehearing by the Adult Authority, plaintiff Murrin was sent to the Conservation Camp #5 at Miramonte, California (Fresno County) where he is presently performing on the work crew. Plaintiff Murrin incurred no other disciplinary infractions, caused no disruptions, performed everything which was requested of him save that he requested that he be removed from the P.F.T. program and placed in the special skills auto mechanic program as per the Adult Authority’s stipulation in May of 1972. Plain- tiff Murrin’s sentence was automatically refixed at “the life top” by the said rescission. Plaintiff Mur- rin alleges that there was no good cause nor any legal cause whatsoever to rescind his term fixing and parole date by the Adult Authority. Plaintiff George Chatfield (representing subclasses B and C) 15.a. On or about June 13, 1968 Plaintiff George Chatfield was placed on parole following a term in California State prison for robbery. Shortly after his release, he suffered a complete nervous breakdown 37 in which he became the victim of a psychotic delusion that he was a bodyguard to President Kennedy; that President Kennedy had not been killed, but kid- napped; and that he had been instructed to rob a bank in order to obtain money for the President’s ransom. b. On or about February 27, 1969 he was appre- hended by federal authorities for the robbery of a federally insured bank in Santa Rosa, California. He escaped from said custody and was again apprehended in Washington State on or about October 13, 1969 and returned to San Francisco. In San Francisco, pursu- ant to an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, he was evalu- ated and examined to determine his competency to stand trial on the bank robbery charge. On or about February 12, 1970, the examining psychiatrist deter- mined that Plaintiff was mentally incompetent to stand trial or to understand the charges against him and that he suffered from a paranoid, schizophrenic reaction. e. A further, more detailed examination was or- dered by the Court, pursuant to which Plaintiff was sent to California Medical Facility at Vacaville (here- inafter “CMF”) for examination by CMF’s chief psy- chiatrist, A.G. Nugent, M.D. On or about April 13, 1970, following extensive examination, Dr. Nugent concluded that plaintiff was a schizophrenic and that he was suffering an acute schizophrenic illness of psy- chotic proportions. Dr. Nugent further concluded that Plaintiff was mentally incompetent to understand 38 the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense. d. Plaintiff was then committed to the Medical Center for Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, where he remained—except for a brief period when he was returned to San Francisco—until August, 1971. Psy- chiatric evaluations during this period by Springfield staff and by psychiatrists for Plaintiff establish that Plaintiff was schizophrenic and that he needed insti- tutionalized psychiatric treatment and supervision for an indefinite period of time. e. Because of the likelihood of an insanity defense prevailing at any trial on the federal bankruptcy charges, the United States Attorney elected to dismiss the federal charges in August, 1971. Plaintiff was thereupon returned to California state prison to face parole violation charges which included a charge that he committed the same bank robbery which had just been dismissed in Federal Court. Plaintiff was at this time still schizophrenic and paranoid and incapable of assisting in any defense, or of arguing to the Adult Authority that he should be committed to a mental institution. f. Plaintiff first appeared before two members of the Adult Authority at a parole revocation hearing in December, 1971. At said time he requested the right to have an attorney. Said request was denied. He was then asked to plead guilty or not guilty to the parole violation charges against him. Plaintiff then stated that he could not enter a plea without some assistance, and that he did not know what the charges were about 39 nor did he understand them. The panel refused all requests for assistance, adjourned the revocation hear- ing, and summoned plaintiff to a new hearing in Jan- uary, 1972. At the January, 1972, hearing, two Adult Authority members badgered and pressured plaintiff for over an hour to plead either guilty or not guilty to the charges against him and refused again to permit him to be represented by counsel. Plaintiff again declined to enter either plea without legal assistance, and left the revocation hearing. In his absence, the panel found Plaintiff guilty of having violated condi- tions of his parole, revoked said parole, refixed his sentence at the maximum of life, and returned him to state prison to finish his term. Plaintiff has been in San Quentin Prison ever since. g. At each of the foregoing hearings before the Adult Authority, the panel members acted without affording plaintiff any opportunity to make a coherent presentation of his case since he was incompetent and insane. The Authority therefore did not have a full, complete, or accurate picture of the facts of his case, nor did it have before it any analysis of what possible dispositions short of a new state prison commitment were available in plaintiff’s case. 16. Petitioners are informed and believe and there- fore allege, in addition to the allegations of paragraph 2 incorporated herein by this reference, that: a. Defendant Adult Authority members, hearing representatives, and administrative officers have no ex- pertise in arriving at fair decisions concerning parole date rescission, parole revocation, term fixing and pa- 40 role release. To the contrary, said members, represent- atives, and administrative officer are quite unsuited for the task as a result of: (i) The narrow partisan background which vir- tually every one of them possesses, due to having been for many years a law enforcement officer, and by the punitive anti-prisoner biases which they possess; and (ii) Their experience as Adult Authority mem- bers, representatives or administrative officer, which has led them to adopt rigid and stereotyped thinking patterns pursuant to which they look more for the quality or servility than for those qualities which would, in fact, portend success on parole. b. The persons who serve as members and repre- sentatives of the Adult Authority do not reflect a wide or representative cross-section of the population of California, but instead manifest attitudes which militate against a fair and open attitude in assessing parole readiness. ce. At the hearings, panel members rely heavily upon written material which is unreliable, because composed of reports which (i) are often false, mali- cious, inaccurate or misleading, (ii) are essentially one-sided, insofar as they contain almost exclusively adverse material, without a correponding emphasis upon the positive aspects of an inmate’s prison be- havior, (iii) are placed in an inmate’s file through a process which contains no substantial safeguards whatsoever to determine reliability, and (iv) may not 41 he reviewed by the inmate who is therefore unable to refute even the most demonstrably untrue information. d. In appearing before an Adult Authority Panel, many inmates are so fearful, tongue-tied or lacking in the ability to organize and articulate their position that they are unable to make an effective presentation of their case, or even on occasion to respond accu- rately to questions posed by the panel. Usually, the inmate has no idea what the two panel members are concerned about. Sometimes the panel explicitly in- forms the inmate of their particular concerns, and sometimes it does not. The impression which the panel members receive concerning the inmate is often quite different from the truth. e. In almost every hearing the panel members do not have sufficient time (i) to thoroughly review the relevant written material before them, (ii) to conduct a thorough and meaningful interview with the inmate, or (iii) to arrive at an informed decision pursuant to u discussion of the case. | f. Inmates are often told, at a term-fixing hearing, that particular accomplishments (e.g. participation in vocational] training or group counseling) are expected of them prior to their next appearance before the Adult Authority, if they are to have their sentence fixed and parole granted. Often, however, the inmate will accomplish the very matters prescribed, only to be told by 2 different members or representatives at his next hearing that those accomplishments are ir- relevant and that some one or more other items must be performed during the subsequent year. Such incon- 42 sistency from year to year, and between different members and representatives of the Adult Authority, causes frustration, bitterness and hostility in many inmates, and is therefore anti-rehabilitative in nature. g. Because of the foregoing considerations set forth in this paragraph, the decisions reached and the ac- tions taken by Adult Authority members and repre- sentatives herein complained of, are based upon (1) mere whim and caprice, reflecting primarily the panel member’s personal predelictions, (ii) discriminatory considerations, reflecting primarily the panel member’s own political, racial, and other biases and/or (iii) criteria which in fact do not correspond to the likeli- hood of success on parole, and therefore are not based upon the “good cause” required by State law and the Federal Constitution. h. Hearings held by the Department of Correc- tions to adjudicate alleged rules infractions and to impose disciplinary sanctions including prolonged iso- lation and loss of privileges or to write and lodge reports of infractions and other incidents in the per- manent central files of inmates are conducted arbi- trarily and capriciously. Investigation of the facts of such alleged infractions is biased and incomplete and inmates are not given an opportunity to rebut or, in many cases, even to see the evidence against them. When formal hearings are held at all they are con- ducted by partial and interested personnel. Neither the inmate nor any representative of the inmate is permitted to see his central file even though items in said file are frequently used as evidence against him. - eee “ 43 These procedures are not designed to and in fact do not develop the critical facts on which administrative decisions are made and reports made. i. State prisoners perceive Adult Authority and Department of Corrections hearings to be eminently unfair, and they share a widespread belief that the Adult Authority and the Department consistently act in an arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal manner; that their central files, upon which the Adult Author- ity places heavy reliance, contain much untrue and misleading information; and that the indeterminate sentence implemented through the type of hearing presently conducted by the Adult Authority, is funda- mentally unfair. In fact, the type of Adult Authority and Department of Corrections hearings described herein cause grave and extensive anxiety and suf- fering. j. The intended benefits of the indeterminate sentence have, in fact, been utterly perverted by the defective hearings conducted by the Adult Authority, as described herein. The result is that California pres- ently exacts the longest sentences in the nation, and is holding in confinement literally thousands of in- mates who should not be imprisoned by any rational criteria, thereby inflicting needless massive human suffering. Legal Claims 17. While acting under color of the law of the State of California, as more fully described in para- graphs 8 through 16 thereof, defendants have deprived 44 plaintiffs and their subclasses of the following rights which are secured to them by the United States Con- stitution : a. The right not to have a decision by the Adult Authority, which fixes an inmate’s term and sets a date for his release on parole, rescinded in the absence of (a) good cause therefor, and (b) fun- damental procedural safeguards, secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amend- ment; b. The right not to have their parole revoked in the absence of (a) good cause therefore, and (b) fundamental procedural safeguards, secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and ce. The right not to have term-fixing and parole release decisions made in the absence of counsel and other fundamental procedural safeguards, secured by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. d. The right not to have disciplinary sanctions imposed for alleged violation of prison rules, or reports of said violations placed in inmate central files in the absence of a fair and impartial inves- tigation of the facts, a hearing before an impartial tribunal whenever serious disciplinary sanctions are considered, the right to counsel whenever ser- ious sanctions are considered, and the right to view and examine the inmate’s central fiile, all of which rights are secured by the Fifth and 45 Sixth Amendments and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. e. The right to be free from prolonged incarcer- ation and isolation in the absence of any of the procedural safeguards enumerated above under conditions which shock the general conscience and are intolerable to fundamental fairness, which constitute punishment greatly disproportionate to any offense for which they are imposed and which go beyond what is necessary to accomplish any legitimate penal aim, all secured to plaintiffs and their class under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 18. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists relating to the rights and duties of the parties, in that defendants have denied and continue to deny to plaintiffs and their subclasses the constitutional rights set forth in paragraph 17 hereof. As a result of these violations, plaintiffs and the members of their subclasses have been and will continue to be irrepar- ably injured by the aforesaid conduct of defendants unless this Court grants the declaratory and injunc- tive relief which they seek. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the unlawful acts compained of herein. Wherefore, plaintiffs and their class request that this Court: 1. Issue a declaratory judgment that the acts of defendants enumerated in paragraphs 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 46 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of this complaint with respect to the revocation, rescission, or suspension of parole; the refixing or fixing of sentences; or the imposition of sanctions for alleged rules infractions contravene the rights of plaintiffs and their class under the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ; 2. Issue a preliminary and thereafter a permanent injunction requiring defendants, their agents, employ- ees and representatives to accord plaintiffs and their classes the following rights: A. (1) timely notice of all proceedings and hear- ings to perform any of the acts enumerated in sub- paragraph B and timely and informative notice of all charges including a statement of the charge and of the evidence to be relied upon; and an opportunity to conduct a timely review of the entire central file; (2) an opportunity to be heard, to present witnesses, and to cross-examine witnesses ; (3) the right to be represented by counsel at any hearing ; (4) the right to be heard by an unbiased panel or official and the right to challenge any panel or official for cause; (5) the right to a verbatim transcript of any hearing and a written statement of the reasons for performing or refusing to perform the acts enumer- ated in subparagraph (b) and a written statement of the evidence relied on; 47 B. The hearings at which the guarantees enumer- ated above are to be accorded are: (1) revoking, suspending or rescinding parole or refixing or otherwise increasing sentences; (2) fixing or refusing to fix the terms of in- mates; (3) imposing serious disciplinary sanctions. 3. Certify that this action may be maintained as a class action; 4. Grant such other and further relief as to the Court seems appropriate including retaining juris- diction in this matter. Dated: November 15, 1972 Respectfully submitted, By /s/ B. E. Bergesen, III B. E. Bergesen, III Fay Stender Ezra Hendon Siegried Hesse Attorneys for Plaintiffs 48 AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN VAN GELDERN State of California County of San Luis Obispo—ss. John Van Geldern, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: On or before July 7, 1972 I caused to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a complaint similar but differ- ent than the complaint in John van Geldern vs. Kerr et al, involving some of the same plaintiffs and some of the same defendants, and asking for some relief similar to that prayed for in van Geldern vs. Kerr. I prepared the pleadings in the said earlier complaint in pro per, and the complaint was filed in pro per. Entitled van Geldern vs. Edmonds it was numbered C-72-1251 SW, and it was never served. Immediately after filing said complaint, it was brought to my at- tention that certain documents necessary to the relief being sought were not prepared or on file, and during the time in which I undertook to prepare said docu- ments, I also was able to interest private counsel, not in representing the plaintiffs in van Geldern v. Ed- munds, but in preparing a different lawsuit dealing with some of the same problems, and additional ones as well. At the time I caused the earlier case to be filed, I was unaware of the Local Rule requiring counsel to file, immediately, a Notice of Related Case if they believed that their case came within the Local Rule on Related Cases, and I was specifically unaware of the case of Hamlin v. Nelson, C-71-342 RFP which was pending in the Northern District and which raised most of the issues in Van Geldern v. Edmunds and in Van Geldern v. Kerr. I thus did not file a Notice of Related Case at that time. I was also unaware of other cases pending in the Northern District which my present counsel inform me may raise many of the issues raised in Van Geldern v. Kerr. /s/ John Van Geldern John Van Geldern [Jurat Omitted in Printing] AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE CHATFIELD State of California County of Marin—-ss. George Chatfield, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I am one of the plaintiffs in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing complaint and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are stated to be on information and belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true. /s/ George Chatfield George Chatfield [Jurat Omitted in Printing] 30 VERIFICATION State of California County of San Luis Obispo—ss. John Van Geldern, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I am one of the plaintiffs in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing complaint and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated to be true on information and belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true. /s/ John Van Geldern John Van Geldern '[Jurat Omitted in Printing] Arripavit or Ropert NEwToON GARDNER, JR. State of California County of San Luis Obispo—ss. Robert Newton Gardner, Jr. being first duly Sworn, deposes and says: I am one of the plaintiffs in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing complaint and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief and as to those mat- ters I believe it to be true. /8/ Robert Newton Gardner, Jr. Robert Newton Gardner, Jr. [Jurat Omitted in Printing] 51 In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California [Filed June 21, 1973! [Caption Omitted in Printing] REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs hereby request that defendants, and each of them, produce for inspection and copying at 9:00 A.M. on July 21, 1973, at the offices of the Attorney General of the State of California, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California, each of the following documents :’ 1. All files maintained by the California Adult Authority and/or by the California Department of Corrections upon each of the named plaintiffs, includ- ing without limitation each inmate’s central file, his so-called AW file, his central office file, and every other file or portion thereof, including all material which has been removed from any such file and is still in the possession of the Adult Authority or the De- partment of Corrections, or by any subdivision, officer or employee thereof. These files and materials are to be produced in their entirety. ry ing held by the California Adult Authority or the Celifornia Department of Corrections) diaries and personal inter-office memo- randa. 52 2. All documents which set forth the substantive standards or criteria which the Adult Authority has used, at any time during the past 5 years, in making its decisions with respect to (1) parole granting, ( 2) term fixing, (3) parole recession, and (4) parole revocation. 3. All documents which have been used by the Adult Authority or by the Department of Corrections which. set. forth the procedures to be followed by mem- bers, hearing representatives and other employees of the Adult Authority, and by officials or employees of the Department of Correction, in making the 4 types of decisions listed in the preceding item, as well as the contemplated role of inmates in those proceedings. 4. The agendas prepared for, and the minutes or summaries of, each meeting held by the Adult Au- thority or by any committee or subdivision thereof, including without limiiation the minutes of all Exee- utive Meetings and all Special Meetings, for the last > years. 5. Every general index, or guide, or table of con- tents, or similar document with respect to the files maintained by the Adult Authority. 6. CDC Memorandum signed by R. E. Doran, dated July 19, 1972, addressed “Attention: Classifica- tion and Parole Representatives” and sent to each institution operated by the California Department of Corrections. 7. All files, including all personnel files, which are maintained by the Adult Authority or by the Depart- 53 ment of Corrections, or by any officer or employee thereof, with respect to each member, each hearing representative, and the Executive Officer of the Adult Authority. 8. The monthly itineraries which list the day-by- day assignments of all of the Adult Authority mem- bers and hearing representatives at the various insti- tutions, or in Sacramento. 9. A copy of the testimony of each member or hearing representative or the Executive Officer of the Adult Authority before any executive, judicial, or legislative body (e.g. a legislative committee or sub- committee) given within the past 5 years. 10. The full texts (or summaries, if texts are not available) of each speech made before any group whatsoever, whether public or private, or on any radio or television program, or in any panel discus- sion or conference, made by any member or hearing representative or the Executive Officer of the Adult Authority during the past 5 years. . 11. Each list of appearances before public or pri- vate groups or organizations made by any member or hearing representative or the Executive Officer of the Adult Authority during the past 5 years. 12. All statistics whatsoever concerning the opera- tion and performance of the California Adult Author- itv and any of its members, hearing representatives or the Executive Officer during the past 5 years. Solely by way of example, and without limiting in any way the generality of this particular request, statis- tics should be published showing, for each year (or o4 month, if possible) the percentage of inmates granted parole, broken down by institution, crime, amount of time served, and the like; the number and percent of inmates who have had parole rescinded or revoked; the voting records of the individual members and rep- resentatives (e.g. in terms of number and percent of paroles granted/denied, paroles revoked/not revoked, ete.;) and each one of the monthly reports referred to by defendant Kerr at page 19 of his deposition - taken on January 22, 1973. 13. Each document which shows the voting records of every member and hearing representative for the past 5 years. 14. Each report submitted by any member, hearing representative, Executive Officer, or any other em- ployee or official of the Adult Authority, including without limitation all reports of the type indicated at lines 9-11 of page 21 of the aforementioned deposition. 15. All written statements written or delivered by any member or hearing representative or the Execu- tive Officer of the Adult Authority during the past 5 years favoring, opposing, or in any way comment- ing upon bills or other legislation or legislative pro- posal pending in the U.S. Hou. »f Representatives, the Senate of the United States, o California Legislature. 16. A copy of the most detailed breakdown of the Adult Authority budget for each of the nast 5 years. 17. All studies of the Adult Authority prepared or issued by any source whatsoever, including without limitation (1) the Adult Authority or any member, 55 hearing representative, official or employee thereof, (2) any executive, judicial, legislative or other gov- ernmental agency or organization, (3) any private foundation or other private individual or organiza- tion. 18. All written proposals for any change whatso- ever in the organization or operation of, qualifica- tions for, or substantive criteria and procedures to be employed by the Adult Authority, including without limitation any of the individuals or groups listed in the foregoing item. 19. All articles prepared for publication (whether or not they were ever published) by any member, hearing representative, official or employee of the Adult Authority. 20. All memoranda written by the Chairman of the Adult Authority during the past 5 years, no matter to whom sent, including without limitation memo- randa sent to other government organizations, agen- cies or officials, or to other members, hearing representatives, officials or employees of the Adult Authority. 21. All documents in effect on November 15, 1972 which pertain to any Policy Statement or Resolution issued by the Adult Authority, including without lim- itation any file maintained on any Resolution or Policy Statement and all such documents executed or issued subsequent to that date. 22. All documents, however formal or informal, issued during the past calendar year, which concern the Adult Authority’s adoption of new policies, pro- 56 cedures, criteria, and the like, to be followed by mem- bers, hearing representatives, officials and employees, including without limitation all documents relating to a) Policy Statement No. 24, Adopted March 27, 1973, and b) Resolution No. 129, revised and reissued May 21, 1973. With respect to any and all of the foregoing docu- ments, reference is made to said documents as they existed on June 21, 1973, together with all additions thereto between said date and the actual date of in- spection by attorneys for plaintiffs. In other words, no such documents are to be withheld from said in- spection, even though they might in the ordinary course be discarded or destroyed by defendants prior to the inspection date. Inspection and copying shall continue from day to day until attorneys for plaintiffs have completed their review of these documents. Dated: June 19, 1973 B. E. Bergesen, ITT Fay Stender Ezra Hendon Siegfried Hesse /s/ Ezra Hendon Attorneys for Plaintiffs [Statement of Service Omitted in Printing] 57 United States District Court Northern District of California [Filed November 30, 1973] [Caption Omitted in Printing] DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR Propucri0on OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiffs have requested, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the production of the documents listed below. The documents which will be produced pursuant to plaintiffs’ requests will be made available for inspec- tion at the agency or department in whose custody those documents are normally kept. Inspection may take place only during the normal office hours of that agency or department and pursuant to any regulations promulgated by it pursuant to California Government Code section 0253. Notice must be given to the rec- ords officer who has custody over the documents sought at least ten working days prior to the date inspection is desired. Inspection of documents listed in the notice must be completed within sixty days of commencing inspection. All copying is to be done at plaintiffs’ ex- pense, on the premises and under the supervision of the agency or department involved. Unless otherwise stated all documents will be produced at the office of the Adult Authority in Sacramento. 1. “All files maintained by the California Adult Authority and/or by the California Department of Corrections upon each of the named plaintiffs, includ- ing without limitation cach inmate’s central file, his so-called AW file, his central office file, and every 58 other file or portion thereof, including all material which has been removed from any such file and is still in the possession of the Adult Authority or the Department of Corrections, or by any subdivision, officer or employee thereof. These files and materials are to be produced in their entirety.” According to the provisions of the California Penal Code section 2081.5 these documents may not be dis- closed absent a waiver of that privilege. Calif. Evid. Code § 1040(b) (1). With respect to the inmate’s cen- tral file a limited waiver of privilege has been made and the items contained therein listed in Appendix A attached to this response will be produced. Those items listed in Appendix B will be produced after review if found not to contain confidential matter. No waiver has been entered as to the rest of the inmate’s central file. They will be available for inspection at the insti- tution where the individual plaintiffs concerned is confined. For those plaintiffs on parole their files are available at the regional parole office for the area to which they have been paroled. For the plaintiff on parole out of state his file is available at the interstate parole office located in Sacramento. 2. “All documents which set forth the substantive standards or criteria which the Adult Authority has used, at any time during the past 5 years, in making its decision with respect to (1) parole granting, (2) term-fixing, (3) parole recession, and (4) parole revo- cation.” The regulations, resolutions, and policy statements of the Adult Authority, to the extent that they exist 59 and are in the custody or under control of a party to this action will be made available at the Adult Authority’s office in Sacramento. To the extent this request may seek material privileged by California Government Code section 6254(a) defendants object. 3. “All documents which have been used by the Adult Authority or by the Department of Corrections which set forth the procedures to be followed by mem- bers, hearing representatives, and other employees of the Adult Authority, and by officials or employees of the Department of Corrections, in making the 4 types of decisions listed in the preceding item, ws well as the contemplated role of inmates in those proceedings.” Defendants are unable to determine from the de- scription of the request if any such documents exist or are in their custody or under their control beyond those which will be produced pursuant to request No. 2 above. 4. “The agendas prepared for, and’ the minutes or summaries of, each meeting held by the Adult Author- ity or by any committee or subdivision thereof, includ- ing without limitation the minutes of all Exeutive Meetings and ali Special Meetings, for the last 5 years.” The purpose of the California Adult Authority meetings are to make a full and complete study of the cases of all prisoners whose terms of imprison- ment are to be determined by them. Hence, documents sought to be produced by this request would involve disclosure of information acquired in confidence by the California Adult Authority concerning virtually 60 every adult male inmate who has been confined in a California state penal institution during the last five years, The California Adult Authority asserts the privilege against the disclosure of this information. See Calif. Govt. Code §§ 6254(a), (c), (f) & (k) ; Calif. Evid. Code § 1040(b) (1), (2). o. “Every general index, or guide, or table of con- tents, or similar document with respect to the files maintained by the Adult Authority.” Defendants object to the production of those docu- ments requested in this item pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) since the defend- ants cannot perceive the relevance of these items to the subject matter of this litigation. Most of the files maintained by the California Adult Authority contain privileged material or are privileged themselves. Their indexes, guides, tables of contents, etc. share that privilege. 6. “CDC Memorandum signed by R. E. Doran, dated July 19, 1972, addressed “Attention: Classi- fication and Paroie Representatives” and sent to each institution operated by the California Department of Corrections.” Defendants object to the production of this inter- agency memoranda and questions its relevancy to the subject matter of the instant litigation. See Celif. Govt. Code § 6254(a); Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc. 7. “All files, including all personnel files, which are maintained by the Adult Authority or by the <2 61 Department of Corrections, or by any officer or em- ployee thereof, with respect to each member, each hearing representative, and the Executive Officer of the Adult Authority.” The California Adult Authority asserts the privi- lege against disclosure of these documents conferred by California Government Code section 6254(c) and California Evidence Code section 1040(b) (1). 8. “The monthly itineraries which list the day-by- day assignments of all of the Adult Authority members and hearing representatives at the various institutions, or in Sacramento.” To the extent that the monthly itineraries of past assignments exist they will be made available. Defend- ants object to the production of monthly itineraries for future assignments on the grounds that they are irrelevant to the subject matter of the instant action and their disclosure could impair the security of the members of the Adult Authority. It should be under- stood that the past itineraries in defendants’ posses- sion do not reflect any changes which may have occurred following their publication. 9. “A copy of the testimony of each member or hearing representative or the Executive Officer of the Adult Authority before any executive, judicial, or legislative body (e.g., a legislative committee or sub- committee) given within the past 5 vears.” Defendants do not possess the material requested and suggest plaintiffs pursue the remedy provided by Rule 34(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 62 10. “The full texts (or summaries, if texts are not available) of each speech made before any group whatsoever, whether public or private, or on any radio or television program, or in any panel discussion or conference, made by any member or hearing repre- sentative or the Executive Officer of the Adult Au- thority during the past 5 years.” Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it does not describe the items requested with suf- ficient particularity so that they can determine what is sought. See Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc. 34(b). Spe- cifically, defendants object to such vague language “any group whatsoever.” Moreover, the scope of the request is not limited to matters relevant to the sub- ject matter of the instant case and defendants should not be put to the burden of determining what, in the plaintiffs’ view is relevant. However, to the extent the defendants can identify material sought by this request which exists, and is within their custody or control they will make it avail- able to the plaintiffs. 11. “Each list of appearances before public or pri- vate groups or organizations made by any member or hearing representative or the Executive Officer or the Adult Authority during the past 5 years.” To the extent such list exists, are within the custody or control of the defendants, and not previously pro- vided by their response to request No. 8 above they will be made available. 63 12. “All statistics whatsoever concerning the opera- tion and performance of the California Adult Author- ity and any of its members, hearing representatives or the Executive Officer during the past 5 years. Solely by way of example, and without limiting in any way the generality of this particular request, sta- tistics should be published showing, for each year (or month, if possible) the percentage of inmates granted parole, broken down by institution, crime, or amount of time served, and the like; the number and percent of inmates who have had parole rescinded or revoked ; the voting records of the individual members and representatives (e¢.g., in terms of number and percent of paroles granted/denied, paroles revoked/ not revoked, ete.) and each one of the monthly re- ports referred to by defendant Kerr at page 19 of his deposition taken on January 22, 1973.” Defendants object to this request upon the grounds that it does not describe the material sought with suf- ficient particularity. See Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc., Rule 34(b). Specifically, defendants object to such vague language as “all statistics whatsoever” and “without limiting in any the generality of this par- ticular request.” However, to the extent that defendants can deter- mine from the request those statistics which are rele- vant to the subject matter of the instant litigation, which exist within their custody or control, they will be made available. U4 13. “Each document which shows the voting rec- ords of every member and hearing representative for the past 5 years.” Defendants object to the vagueness of this request. Specifically to the language “each document” defend- ants should not be put in a position having to deter- mine which documents this request pertains. | Moreover, the items sought by this request are priv- ileged by the provisions of the California Government Code section 6254(a) and (k) which privilege is as- serted by the California Adult Authority. 14. “Each report submitted by any member, hear- ing representative, Executive Officer, or any other employee or official of the Adult Authority, including without limitation all reports of the type indicated at lines 9-11 of page 21 of the aforementioned deposi- tion.” Defendants object to this request on the basis that it does not describe the items requested with reason- able particularity. See Fed. Rules of Civ. Proce. JA(b). They should not be put to the burden of having to determine which if any of these reports are relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. Compare, Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc, 26(b) (1). Moreover, reports of the type referred to by Mr. Kerr in his deposition are privileged under the terms of California Government Code section 6254(f ) and the Adult Authority asserts the privilege against dis- closure conferred by California Evidence Code section 1040(b) (1). 15. “All written statements written or delivered by any member or hearing representative or the Execu- tive Officer of the Adult Authority during the past 5 years favoring, opposing, or in any way commenting upon bills or other legislation or legislative proposal pending in the United States House of Representa- tives, the Senate of the United States, or the California Legislature.” To the extent this request seeks documents not here- tofore made available in response to items 9 and 10 above it seeks matter privileged under California Gov- ernment Code section 6234(a) and the California Adult Authority asserts this privilege. 16. “A copy of the most detailed breakdown of the Adult Authority budget for each of the past 5 years.” Defendants object to this request in that it is over- broad, seeks matter not relevant to the subject matter of the instant litigation, and places the defendants in a position of having to determine which if any items are properly requested. A copy of the budget of the State of California is published annually and avail- able to plaintiffs at most libraries. It contains the bud- get for the California Adult Authority. An additional breakdown of any item listed in the published budget, relevant to the subject matter in the instant litigation will be provided to plaintiffs upon request. 17. “All studies of the Adult Authority prepared or issued by any source whatsoever, including without limitation (1) the Adult Authority or any member, hearing representative, official or employee thereof, 66 (2) any executive, judicial, legislative or other gov- ernmental agency or organization, (3) any private aw or other private individual or organiza- Defendants object to the scope of this request in that it seeks material irrelevant to the subject matter of the instant litigation and does not describe the ma- terial sought with sufficient particularity so that the defendants can identify it. Defendants specifically object to such vague language as “issued by any source whatsoever.” Moreover, the request attempts to compel the de- fendants to produce material which is not within their custody or control. Defendants suggest if plaintiffs wish this type of information they proceed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(c) and bring an independent action against “any executive, judicial, legislative or other governmental agency or organiza- tion, any private foundation or other private indi- vidual or organization” which they feel may have material relevant to the instant action. However, to the extent that the defendants are able to identify material apparently sought by this request, which exists, is within their custody or control and has previously been published they will make it avail- able to plaintiffs. With respect to studies or reports not previously published the California Adult Au- thority asserts the privilege against disclosure con- ~ by California Government Code section 6254 (f). 18. “All written proposals for any change what- soever in the organization or operation of, qualifica- 67 tions for, or substantive criteria and procedures to be employed by the Adult Authority, including without limitation any of the individuals or groups listed in the foregoing item.” ~ Defendants object to the scope of this request in that it seeks material irrelevant to the subject matter of the instant litigation, and does not describe with sufficient particularity the material sought so that the defendants can identify it. Defendants further object on the grounds of the language of the request is too vague for them to iden- tify the items sought. Specifically they object to such language as “any change whatsoever.” The defendants object to the request insofar as it seeks articles pre- pared by or in the custody and control of persons not parties to this action. 19. “All articles prepared for publication (whether or not they were ever published) by any member, hearing representative, official or employee of the Adult Authority.” To the extent that the defendants are able to iden- tify material sought by this request which was in fact published and still exists within their custody or con- trol it will be produced. The defendants object to the request insofar as it seeks articles prepared by or in the custody and con- trol of persons not parties to this action. With respect to unpublished works the California Adult Authority asserts the privilege of California Government Code section 6254(a) and California Evi- dence Code section 1040(b) (2). 68 Defendants further object on the basis that the material sought is not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation involved in this case. 20. “All memoranda written by the Chairman of the Adult Authority during the past 5 years, no matter to whom sent, including without limitation memoranda sent to other government organizations, agencies or officials, or to other members, hearing representative, officials or employees of the Adult Authority.” Defendants object to this request on the basis that it is too broad for them to determine whether or not it seeks material relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. Moreover, it seeks material to which the California Adult Authority asserts the privilege against disclosure. See Calif. Govt. Code §§ 6254(a) and (f). 21. “All documents in effect on November 15, 1972 which pertain to any Policy Statement or Resolution issued by the Adult Authority, including without limi- tation any file maintained on any Resolution or Policy Statement and all such documents executed or issued subsequent to that date.” To the extent not already provided in response to request No. 2 above the California Adult Authority asserts the privilege against disclosure conferred by California Government Code sections 6254(a) and (f) and California Evidence Code section 1040(b) (1). 22. “All documents, however formal or informal, issued during the past calendar year, which concern the Adult Authority’s adoption of new policies, pro- cedures, criteria, and the like, to be followed by mem- bers, hearing representatives, officials and employees, including without limitation all documents relating to (a) Policy Statement No. 24, Adopted March 27, 1973, and (b) Resolution No. 129, revised and. reissued. May 21, 1973.” To the extent not already provided in response to request No. 2. above, the Adult Authority asserts the privilege against disclosure conferred by California Government Code section 6254(a) and (f) and Cali- fornia Evidence Code section 1040(b) (1). Dated: November 30, 1973. Evelle J, Younger, Attorney General Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Assistant Attorney General —Criminal Division Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General—Writs Section | John T. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General /s/ William D. Stein William D. Stein, Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants WDS :md 70 PoINTs AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PRODUCTION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) limits the scope of discovery to “matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Many records maintained by public agencies such as the California Department of Cor- rections and the California Adult Authority are sub- ject to a claim of privilege by those agencies on the theory that such information is confidential in nature and its disclosure is not compelled by the public in- terest. Whether material is privileged is to be deter- mined according to the law of evidence which will govern the trial. See Moore’s Fed. Prac. Digest, { 26.60(1). Where there is no conflict between the applicable law of evidence and the rules of ‘evidence applied in the courts of general jurisdiction of the state in which the United States district court is held, the law of the latter jurisdiction should be applied. See Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc., Rule 43(a); Moore’s Fed. Prac. Digest, 1 43.07. The privilege against disclosure asserted by the California Department of Corrections and the Cali- fornia Adult Authority through the defendants’ ob- jections to the production of some items requested by plaintiffs rests on California Evidence Code section 1040(b) (1). That section provides in pertinent part that these departments have a privilege to refuse to disclose information acquired in confidence by their employees where disclosure is forbidden by an act of the Congress of the United States or a statute of this State. The California courts have uniformly recog- 71 nized that the provisions of California Government Code section 6254(a), (c), and (f) and Penal Code section 2081.5 prohibit disclosure of this material. Yarish v. Nelson, 27 Cal.App.3d 893, 901-902, 104 Cal. Rptr. 205, 211-212 (1972); cf. In re Harrell, 2 Cal.3d 675, 691, 87 Cal.Rptr. 504, 514 (1970) ; Alanis v. Supe- rior Court, 1 Cal.3d 784, 787, 83 Cal.Rptr. 355, 357 (1970). California Evidence Code section 1040(b) (2) recognizes an additional privilege of a public entity to refuse to disclose official information where such disclosure would be against the public interest due to the necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information which outweighs the necessity for its dis- closure in the interests of justice. See also California Government Code section 6255 which allows a public agency to withhold records for public policy reasons. Included in the class of documents treated as confi- dential by a mandate of public policy are documents and records kept on file in public institutions con- cerning the care and treatment of inmates thereof, and files of those charged with the punishment of criminals. Yarish v. Nelson, supra, 27 Cal.3d at 902, 104 Cal.Rptr. at 212. These privileges and exemptions from disclosure of public records maintained by the California De- partment of Corrections and the California Adult Au- thority are substantially identical to the Federal Pub- lic Information Act which is codified in Title 5, United States Code section 552, subd. (bh). The legis- lative history of the federal statute demonstrates the Congressional determination that certain types of offi- cial records are not subject to disclosure. See 2 U.S. 72 Congressional and Administrative News, p. 2148, et seq. (1966). The federal courts recognize that among the records exempted from disclosure are prison and prisoner records. See Tarlton v. United States, 430 F.2d 1351 (5th Cir. 1970). There being no conflict between the applicable state and federal rules of evidence concerning the privilege against disclosure of the records of the California Department of Corrections and the California Adult Authority the privilege created by California law should be recognized and applied in this case. Com- pare Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 1960). Dated: November 30, 1973. Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General ; Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Assistant Attorney General —Criminal Division Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General—Writs - S$Seetion John T. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General /s/ William D. Stein William D. Stein, Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants WDS :md SF CR 023357 73 Appendiz A Judgment and Commitments Informations or Indictments Transcript of Proceedings at time of Sentencing Appellate and/or Supreme Court Decisions Copies of inmate Petitions for Writs Legal Status Report—CDC 195 Summary of Sentence Data—CDC 112 Certifications of Adult Authority Actions—CDC 245 Statements of Judge, Defense Counsel, Law-enforce- ment agency, and District Attorney per Sec. 1203.01 PC, except inmate with life sentence Probation Officer’s Report Arrest Reports Property and Cash Receipts—CDC 104 Property and Cash Release—CDC 122 Body Receipts—CDC 123 Notice of Complaint—CDC 263 Recommendation of Disciplinary Committee & Adult Authority Action—CDC 264 Warrants and Detainers and Related Correspondence Parole Violation Charges & Supportive Statements— CDC 1518 Work Supervisor’s Report—CDC 101 Chrono-Education, High School Progress Report (Gray)—CDC 128D Chrono-Vocational Training Report (Blue) — CDC 128E 74 Chrono-Education, Elementary Report (Green) — CDC 128F Chrono-Interagency Services (Salmon)—CDC 128H Chrono-Group Counseling Assignment (White) — CDC 1281 Chrono-Group Counseling Drop (White)—CDC 128J Chrono-Authorization for Deposit (Green) — CDC 128K Chrono-Education, College Progress Report — CDC 128L CDC Fingerprint Cards—CDC 138 Power of Attorney—CDC 345 Inmate Accident Report—CDC 270 Psychological Test Results—CDC 209 Application for Mail & Visiting Privileges—CDC 105 Mail & Visiting Questionnaire—CDC 106 Vocational Trade Evaluation—CDC 153 Trade & Industry Work Experience—CDC 153A Application for Employment—CDC 147 Notice of Offer of Employment—CDC 148 Approval of Temporary Release—CDC 601 Request for Temporary Release Under Section 2690 PC or 3306 W&I Code Notice of Adult Authority Hearing—CDC 110 Notice to Officials of Adult Authority Hearing—CDC 145 Inquiry to Local Law Enforcement Agency—CDC 206 Adult Authority Request for Transfer—CDC 267 75 Adult Authority Special Proceeding Vote Sheet Conditions of Parole—CDC 1515 Release—CDC 146 Classification and Assignment Sheet—CDC 262 Inmate Mail Record—CDC 119 Record of Inmate Visits—CDC 120 Appendiz B Report of Violation of Institution Rules—CDC 115 Incident Reports General Correspondence Chrono-Custody or General (White)—CDC 128A Chrono-Classification & Social Service (Canary) — CDC 128B Chrono-Medical, Psychiatric, Dental (Pink) — CDC 128C Chrono-Classification Committee (Orange) — CDC 128G [Statement of Service Omitted in Printing] 76 In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California [Filed March 11, 1974] {Caption Omitted in Printing] NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER CoMPELLING DIscovVERY PURSUANT TO RvuLeE 37, FEDERAL RULES OF CiviL PROCEDURE To defendants and to their attorneys of record: please take notice that on March 29, 1974, at 10:00 A.M., or soon thereafter as Counsel may be heard, plaintiffs will move this Court before United States Magistrate David R. Urdan, Federal Building, San Francisco, California, for an order compelling defen- dants herein to answer certain interrogatories previ- ously served upon them pursuant to Rule 33, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to produce for inspec- tion and copying certain documents previously re- quested pursuant to Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At said time and place plaintiffs will fur- ther move the Court for an order awarding to plain- tiffs the costs reasonably incurred by them in obtain- ing the aforementioned order to compel. This motion is made upon the ground that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure plaintiffs are entitled to receive said answers and to inspect said documents, and that defendants are not substantially justified in opposing said discovery and thereby re- quiring plaintiffs to obtain this motion to compel. 77 This motion is based upon the Affidavit of B. E. Bergesen, III, the proposed Order, and the Memo- randum of Points and Authorities in support hereof, all of which are annexed hereto and served and filed herewith, and upon the pleadings and all of the docu- ments on file herein. Dated: February 28, 1974. B. E. Bergesen, III Fay Stender Sidney M. Wolinsky /s/_ B. E. Bergesen, ITI Attorneys for Plaintiffs 78 In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California [Caption Omitted in Printing] Arripavit or B. E. Bercesen, II], 1n Support or PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DIscovERY PURSUANT TO RULE 37, FEDERAL Ruies or Crvi. PROCEDURE I, B. E. Bergesen, III, being duly sworn, depose and say: 1. I am a member of the Bar of this Court and one of the attorneys for plaintiffs in the above-cap- tioned case. 2. During several visits to Deuel Vocational In- stitution, a prison operated by the California Depart- ment of Corrections, I observed a memorandum posted upon a bulletin board in that institution. The memorandum, dated July 19, 1971, and addressed to each institution run by the Department of Correc- tions, was from one R. E. Doran who, upon informa- tion and belief, was formerly the Chief Classification Officer for the Department of Corrections. (See gex- erally a paper written by Mr. Doran for the American Justice Institute, dated December, 1970, entitled “The Process of Organizational Stereotyping: The Case of the Adjustment Center Classification Committe, filed as plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 66 in Charles v. Patterson, No. C-71 1337 SAW (N.D. Cal.)). This memorandum reads in part as follows: “Some inmates become tongue-tied or emotionally involved, and during the course of the interview 79 forget what they really desire to discuss with the Board. ¢ 3. Pursuant to Local Rule 116 of this Court, plain- tiffs’ counsel requested an informal conference with opposing counsel. That request was granted and on March 5, 1974, I and my co-counsel, Sidney M. Wolin- sky, met with William D. Stein, Deputy Attorney General, the attorney for defendants herein, at his office. During this meeting, which lasted about an hour, counsel for plaintiffs did make a good faith attempt to resolve differences insofar as possible with- out court intervention. Although the meeting was amicable throughout, defendants’ counsel was not willing to make any significant change in the position of his clients and did not agree to supply any further answers to interrogatories, or to produce any addi- tional documents. 4. In preparing the instant motion to compel and supporting papers, counsel for plaintiffs have in- curred expenses in the approximate amount of $750.00. Most of this amount is attributable to the time spent by this affiant and his co-counsel in researching the law; in preparing a supporting memorandum of law and the other papers being filed herewith; and in pre- paring for and participating in a hearing on the mo- tion. Other miscellaneous costs include those for photocopying these documents. /s/ B. E. Bergesen, ITT B. E. Bergesen, ITT [Jurat Omitted in Printing] 80 [Title Page, Table of Contents, Table of Authorities and Caption Omitted in Printing) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES In Support or PiArntirrs’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER CoMPELLING Discovery PursuaNT TO RULE 37, FeperaL Ruwes or Crvi PROCEDURE Introduction In their response to plaintiffs’ Rule 33 interroga- tories and Rule 34 request for production of docu- ments, defendants have made a mockery out of the federal discovery process. For not only have defend- ants refused to produce obviously discoverable docu- ments, they have done so by invoking patently spurious grounds and by refusing to make any show- ing whatever with respect to their objections. Rarely, if ever, have counsel for plaintiffs experienced such an intransigent refusal to comply with the letter or the spirit of the discovery rules contained in the Fed- eral Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants’ preliminary efforts, in this Court and in the Ninth Circuit, to have this case dismissed on the pleadings has already been summarized in another document.' When these efforts failed, and plaintiffs served defendants with the Rule 33 interrogatories and the Rule 34 request for production of documents which are the subject of the instant motion to compel, 1See plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of plaintiffs’ motion for an order pursuant to Rule 34, ete., herein on October 23, 1973. 81 defendants simply refused to submit any response whatsoever, until ordered to do so by this Court.? In this memorandum we deal with defendants’ third line of defense, i.e. the interposition of objections to the interrogatories and requests which are, for the most part, wholly without merit.* | Empirical studies have shown that so far as Rule 34 requests for production are concerned, they are almost always honored by the answering party, and that in the great majority of cases the documents requested are produced without court intervention. See Section I, infra, at pages 6-7.* Doubtless this Court knows from its own first-hand experience that in most cases the broad discovery provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is accepted by opposing counsel, who devote their energies to exchanging and analyzing the basic documents, rather than attempting to withhold them from the other side. Unfortunately, this is not the approach which has been taken by these defend- ants who, as we shall show, have instead filed patently specious objections; have consistently failed [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0281%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.