Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 1 of 66 Page ID

#:7074

1 TRACY L. WILKISON
Acting United States Attorney
2 DAVID M. HARRIS
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Chief, Civil Division
JOANNE S. OSINOFF
4 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, General Civil Section
5 KEITH M. STAUB (Cal. Bar No. 137909)
CHUNG H. HAN (Cal. Bar No. 191757)
6 DANIEL A. BECK (Cal. Bar No. 204496)
JASMIN YANG (Cal. Bar No. 255254)
7 PAUL B. GREEN (Cal. Bar No. 300847)
Assistant United States Attorneys
8 Federal Building, Suite 7516
300 North Los Angeles Street
9 Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-7423
10 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819
E-mail: [email protected]
11 [email protected]
[email protected]
12 [email protected]
[email protected]
13
Attorneys for Respondents
14 Louis Milusnic and Michael Carvajal
15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17 WESTERN DIVISION
18 YONNEDIL CARROR TORRES; et No. CV 20-4450 CBM-PVCx
al.,
19 DECLARATION OF JASMIN YANG IN
Plaintiff-Petitioners, SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-
20 RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO
v. PETITIONERS’ EX PARTE
21 APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE
LOUIS MILUSNIC, et al., CASE SCHEDULE AND AUTHORIZE
22 DR. VENTERS’ SITE VISIT [DKT. 189]
Defendants-Respondents.
23 Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
 Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 2 of 66 Page ID
#:7075

1 I, Jasmin Yang, declare as follows:

2 1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Civil Division of the United
3 States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. I am one of the attorneys
4 responsible for defending Respondents in the above-captioned matter. I have personal
5 knowledge of the following facts. If called as a witness, I could and would testify
6 competently thereto.
7 2. On October 23, 28, and December 17, 2020, Petitioners’ counsel and
8 Respondents’ counsel participated in mediation sessions before the Honorable Andrew
9 Guilford in Wilson, et al. v. Ponce, et al., case no. 2:20-cv-4451 MWF, a case where
10 Petitioners’ counsel are counsel of record for the named petitioners involving the BOP’s
11 response to COVID-19 at FCI Terminal Island pending before the Honorable Michael
12 W. Fitzgerald. The parties were unable to reach a settlement agreement.
13 3. On December 8, 2020, the parties in this action exchanged initial
14 disclosures. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the email from
15 Petitioners’ counsel, Oliver Rocos, attaching Petitioners’ initial disclosures.
16 4. On December 15 and 16, 2020, Mr. Rocos emailed Respondents requesting
17 a conference regarding the rise of COVID-19 cases at FCC Lompoc. Respondents’
18 counsel, Chung Han, responded on December 17, 2020, on which I was copied, and a
19 conference was held on December 21, 2020, which I attended. On December 22, 2020,
20 Mr. Rocos emailed again regarding Petitioners’ concerns since the teleconference from
21 the previous day. Ms. Han, Mr. Rocos, and I exchanged extensive emails on December
22 23, 25, and 29, 2020. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of this
23 email exchange entitled “Lompoc – Request for Meet and Confer.” Inmates’ names have
24 been redacted to protect their privacy.
25 5. On December 18, 2020, I emailed to Petitioners’ counsel service of
26 Respondents’ First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of
27 Documents.
28
1
 Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 3 of 66 Page ID
#:7076

1 6. On January 15, 2020, Mr. Rocos requested a two-week extension to respond

2 to the discovery, until the discovery cutoff date of February 1, 2021. Because of the
3 cutoff date, I agreed to a one-week extension. On January 19, 2021, Mr. Rocos thanked
4 me for the extension and served for the first time 22 document demands. Attached hereto
5 as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of this email exchange without Mr. Rocos’
6 attachment.
7 7. The late discovery served by Petitioners (because the discovery cutoff was
8 February 1, 2021) is the only discovery ever served by Petitioners. Petitioners never
9 served interrogatories, requests for admissions or noticed any depositions.
10 8. On January 25, 2021, Petitioners provided their objections and responses to
11 Respondents’ interrogatories and requests for production of documents.
12 9. On February 1, 2021, Respondents served Petitioners with their expert
13 disclosures, including the reports of Jeffrey Beard, a prison management and practices
14 expert, and Asma Tekbali, an epidemiologist. Petitioners did not disclose any experts.
15 Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the email from Respondents’
16 counsel, Daniel Beck, and Ms. Tekbali’s expert report that was attached to Mr. Beck’s
17 email.
18 10. At no point ever—whether prior to the mediation or after the mediation did
19 Petitioners request that the litigation be stayed or suspended nor did Respondents
20 indicate that they considered discovery to be stayed or suspended.
21 11. I attended the February 18, 2021, mediation before the Honorable Raul
22 Ramirez. Towards the end of the session, Judge Ramirez held a joint conference with the
23 parties where Respondents’ counsel expressed skepticism about the success of settlement
24 given Petitioners’ terms. Respondents’ counsel discussed the vaccinations that had
25 occurred at FCC Lompoc during the mediation.
26 12. On February 18, 2021, I served Petitioners with objections to their requests
27 for production of documents. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of
28 my email and Respondents’ objections.
2
 Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 4 of 66 Page ID
#:7077

1 13. On February 19, 2021, I spoke with Petitioners’ counsel, Naeun Rim. Ms.
2 Rim was optimistic that the case could settle and understood that vaccinations were
3 occurring at FCC Lompoc. I told Ms. Rim that there were certain issues where the
4 parties were far apart in agreement. Ms. Rim asked whether I would have any objection
5 to her emailing Judge Castillo’s courtroom deputy in order to let Judge Castillo know
6 that the parties were in settlement negotiations and he should delay ruling on Petitioners’
7 outstanding motion. I told Ms. Rim that I would be okay if she wanted to do because it
8 was Petitioners’ motion, but I never asked her to do so. To the contrary, Ms. Rim raised
9 the issue.
10 14. On February 22, 2021, Ms. Rim emailed Marlene Ramirez, Judge Castillo’s
11 courtroom stating: “Petitioners would like Judge Castillo to know that we are still in the
12 process of settlement discussions.” Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct
13 copy of the email chain Ms. Rim sent to Ms. Ramirez.
14 15. On March 8, 2021, I again discussed settlement with Ms. Rim. Ms. Rim
15 then raised for the first time Petitioners’ request to extend deadlines when I raised
16 discussing Respondents’ summary judgment motion.
17 16. On March 9, 2021, I sent Petitioners’ counsel an e-mail stating that it was
18 Respondents’ position that the parties were too far apart for further mediation to be
19 successful and that Respondents intended to file their motion for summary judgment by
20 the deadline set forth in the Scheduling Order. In that email, I requested available times
21 from Petitioners’ counsel to conduct the L.R. 7-3 meet and confer conference on
22 Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment. This conversation is memorialized in an
23 email exchange dated March 9, 2021, where Ms. Rim stated that she would let Judge
24 Castillo know that the parties had not settled. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and
25 correct copy of this email exchange.
26 17. On March 9, 2021, Ms. Rim emailed Ms. Ramirez that the parties had failed
27 to settle. See Exhibit 6 supra.
28
3
 Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 5 of 66 Page ID
#:7078

1 18. On March 15, 2021, I followed up on Respondents’ request to meet and

2 confer on summary judgment motion. See Exhibit 7 supra.
3 19. Counsel for Petitioners and Respondents conducted the L.R. 7-3 meet and
4 confer conference via telephone on March 17, 2021. Oliver Rocos and Jimmy Threatt of
5 Bird Marella and Sara Norman of Prison Law Group participated in the teleconference.
6 Paul Green and I participated on behalf of Respondents. During the teleconference,
7 Petitioners requested that Respondents stipulate to re-opening closed discovery cutoffs
8 and continuing the trial date in Torres. During the conference, Mr. Rocos stated that
9 there was a “wide-range” of discovery issues in Wilson, and that discovery in Wilson
10 could be “limitless.” Ms. Norman stated that there were “no limitations of discovery” in
11 Wilson, and therefore, it would be to “Respondents’ benefit” to keep the two cases
12 coordinated. I stated that the two cases were distinct and that each party had a
13 responsibility to conduct appropriate discovery for each case, and that it appeared that
14 Petitioners were making a “veiled threat” about using harassing discovery in Wilson to
15 extract a stipulation to re-open discovery in Torres. Ms. Norman denied she was
16 implying that Petitioners’ counsel would engage in abuse of process in Wilson. However,
17 given that Judge Fitzgerald has not yet issued a scheduling order in Wilson, I could think
18 of no other reason why Petitioners’ counsel was attempting to tie the two cases together
19 other than to attempt to leverage one against the other. In other words, I believe that
20 counsel was attempting to have us agree to reopen discovery in Torres in exchange for
21 their agreement that Petitioners’ counsel would conduct more limited and restricted
22 discovery than they may have otherwise conducted in Wilson.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26
27
28
4
 Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 6 of 66 Page ID
#:7079

1 20. On March 17, 2021, Mr. Green provided a lengthy response to Petitioners’
2 March 16, 2021, email, to which Ms. Norman responded on March 18, 2021. Attached
3 hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Mr. Green’s email, and Ms. Norman’s
4 response.
5
6 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
7 Executed on March 21, 2021, in Los Angeles, California.
8
9 /s/ Jasmin Yang
Jasmin Yang
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 7 of 66 Page ID
#:7080

EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 8 of 66 Page ID
#:7081

From: Oliver Rocos

To: Green, Paul (USACAC); Beck, Daniel (USACAC); Han, Chung (USACAC); Staub, Keith (USACAC); Thayer, Damon
(USACAC); Yang, Jasmin (USACAC)
Cc: Naeun Rim; Terry W. Bird; Shoshana E. Bannett; Kate S. Shin; Christopher J. Lee; Jimmy Threatt; Sara Norman;
Don Specter; Peter Eliasberg; Peter Bibring; Sharon K. Grisham
Subject: Torres v. Milusnic - Petitioners" Initial Disclosures
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 5:42:10 PM
Attachments: Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Rule 26(a).pdf

Counsel,

Attached are Plaintiff-Petitioners’ Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures.

Best,

Ollie

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100
F: 310.201.2110
E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
www.BirdMarella.com

Yang Decl., Ex. 1 - 6

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 9 of 66 Page ID
#:7082

1 Terry W. Bird – Bar No. 49038 Donald Specter – Bar No. 83925
[email protected] [email protected]
2 Dorothy Wolpert – Bar No. 73213 Sara Norman – Bar No. 189536
[email protected] [email protected]
3 *Naeun Rim – Bar No. 263558 PRISON LAW OFFICE
[email protected] 1917 Fifth Street
4 Shoshana E. Bannett – Bar No. 241977 Berkeley, California 94710
[email protected] Telephone: (510) 280-2621
5 Kate S. Shin – Bar No. 279867 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704
[email protected]
6 Oliver Rocos – Bar No. 319059 Peter J. Eliasberg – Bar No. 189110
[email protected] [email protected]
7 Christopher J. Lee – Bar No. 322140 Peter Bibring – Bar No. 223981
[email protected] [email protected]
8 Jimmy Threatt – Bar No. 325317 ACLU FOUNDATION OF
[email protected] SOUTHERNthCALIFORNIA
9 BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, 1313 West 8 Street
NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & Los Angeles, CA 90017
10 RHOW, P.C. Telephone: (213) 977-9500
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Facsimile: (213) 977-5297
11 Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
Telephone: (310) 201-2100
12 Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
13 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Petitioners Yonnedil
Carror Torres, Vincent Reed, Felix Samuel
14 Garcia, Andre Brown, and Shawn L. Fears
15
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
18
19 YONNEDIL CARROR TORRES, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVCx
et al.,
20 PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS’
Plaintiff-Petitioners, INITIAL DISCLOSURES
21 PURSUANT TO RULE 26(a)
vs.
22
LOUIS MILUSNIC, in his capacity as Assigned to Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
23 Warden of Lompoc, et al., Courtroom 8B
24 Defendant-Respondents.
25
26
27
28
3687173.1
Yang Decl., Ex. 1 - 7
PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 10 of 66 Page ID
#:7083

1 Plaintiff-Petitioners Yonnedil Carror Torres, Vincent Reed, Felix Samuel

2 Garcia, Andre Brown, and Shawn L. Fears’ (“Petitioners’”) make the following
3 disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). These disclosures
4 are based on information reasonably available to Petitioners as of the date of these
5 disclosures. Petitioners reserve the right to supplement and amend this disclosure as
6 additional information is obtained.
7 I. WITNESSES
8 Based on the information now known and reasonably available, while its
9 investigation of the facts is still ongoing, Petitioners identify the following
10 individuals as potentially having discoverable information that they may use to
11 support their claims or defenses in this case, unless solely for impeachment.
12 A. Petitioners, all of whom can be contacted through Petitioners’ counsel.
13 Each individual has information concerning their health care in FCI Lompoc and
14 USP Lompoc (together, “Lompoc”), the conditions of confinement in Lompoc, the
15 particular risks COVID-19 poses to them, and Respondents’ handling of the
16 COVID-19 pandemic at Lompoc.
17 B. Named Respondents Louis Milusnic and Michael Carvajal, who have
18 information concerning health care at Lompoc, the conditions of confinement in
19 Lompoc, the risks COVID-19 poses to particular former, current, and future
20 Lompoc inmates and the Lompoc inmate population as a whole, and Respondents’
21 handling of the COVID-19 pandemic at Lompoc. Respondents have the contact
22 information for these individuals.
23 C. James Engleman, Associate Warden at Lompoc; Lawrence Cross,
24 Health Services Administrator for the Bureau of Prisons; Melissa Arnold, Complex
25 Case Management Coordinator at Lompoc; Todd Javernick, Regional Correctional
26 Program Administrator for Western Region of the Bureau of Prisons; Crista Colvin,
27 Assistant General Counsel to the Bureau of Prisons; Gabriel Gutierrez, Associate
28 Warden at Lompoc; Theresa Leyvas, Deputy Case Management Coordinator at
Yang Decl., Ex. 1 - 8
3687173.1
2
PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 11 of 66 Page ID
#:7084

1 Lompoc; and David Dwyer, Western Sector Administrator for the Bureau of
2 Prisons, who have information concerning health care at Lompoc, the conditions of
3 confinement in Lompoc, the risks COVID-19 poses to particular former, current,
4 and future Lompoc inmates and the Lompoc inmate population as a whole, and
5 Respondents’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic at Lompoc. Respondents have
6 the contact information for these individuals.
7 D. All current and former staff at Lompoc who have information
8 concerning the provision of health care to inmates at Lompoc, the conditions of
9 confinement at Lompoc, the risks COVID-19 poses to particular former, current,
10 and future Lompoc inmates and the Lompoc inmate population as a whole, and
11 Respondents’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic at Lompoc. Respondents have
12 the contact information for these individuals.
13 E. All current, former, and future inmates at Lompoc who have
14 information concerning the provision of health care to inmates at Lompoc, the
15 conditions of confinement at Lompoc, the risks COVID-19 poses to particular
16 former, current, and future Lompoc inmates and the Lompoc inmate population as a
17 whole, and Respondents’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic at Lompoc.
18 Respondents have the contact information for these individuals.
19 F. Family members of all current, former, and future inmates at Lompoc
20 who have information concerning the provision of health care to inmates at Lompoc,
21 the conditions of confinement at Lompoc, the risks COVID-19 poses to particular
22 former, current, and future Lompoc inmates and the Lompoc inmate population as a
23 whole, and Respondents’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic at Lompoc.
24 G. Any individuals identified by Respondents as persons who may possess
25 discoverable information.
26 II. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
27 Based on the information now known to them, Petitioners identify the
28 following categories of documents that are in their possession, custody, or control,
Yang Decl., Ex. 1 - 9
3687173.1
3
PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 12 of 66 Page ID
#:7085

1 and that they may use to support their claims or defenses in this case, unless solely
2 for impeachment:
3 A. Documents provided to Petitioners by Respondents.
4 B. Healthcare and institutional records for former, current, and future
5 inmates at Lompoc.
6 C. Correspondence from and with Lompoc inmates and their friends,
7 family members, and attorneys concerning the circumstances of their incarceration
8 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
9 D. Declarations from Lompoc inmates and their friends, family members,
10 and attorneys concerning the circumstances of their incarceration during the
11 COVID-19 pandemic.
12 III. DAMAGES
13 Petitioners have not asserted a claim for money damages in this action.
14 IV. INSURANCE
15 This section does not apply to this action.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Yang Decl., Ex. 1 - 10
3687173.1
4
PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 13 of 66 Page ID
#:7086

1 DATED: December 8, 2020 Terry W. Bird

Dorothy Wolpert
2
Naeun Rim
3 Shoshana E. Bannett
Kate S. Shin
4
Oliver Rocos
5 Christopher J. Lee
Jimmy Threatt
6
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
7 Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
8
9
10 By:
11 Naeun Rim
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Petitioners Yonnedil
12 Carror Torres, Vincent Reed, Felix Samuel
13 Garcia, Andre Brown, and Shawn L. Fears
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Yang Decl., Ex. 1 - 11
3687173.1
5
PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 14 of 66 Page ID
#:7087

1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Carror Torres v. Milusnic
Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVCx
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I
5 am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561.
6
On December 8, 2020, I served the following document(s) described as
7 PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO RULE
26(a) on the interested parties in this action as follows:
8
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused the document(s)
10 to be sent from e-mail address [email protected] to the persons at the e-mail
addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
11 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.
12
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
13 foregoing is true and correct.
14 Executed on December 8, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.
15
16
17 Oliver Rocos
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Yang Decl., Ex. 1 - 12

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 15 of 66 Page ID
#:7088

1 SERVICE LIST
Carror Torres v. Milusnic
2 Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVCx
3 Peter J. Eliasberg Donald Specter
Peter Bibring Sara Norman
4 ACLU Foundation of Southern California Prison Law Office
1313 W. 8th Street 1917 Fifth Street
5 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: 213-977-9500 Telephone: (510) 280-2621
6 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
7 Counsel for Plaintiff-Petitioners Counsel for Plaintiff-Petitioners
8 Paul B. Green
Daniel A. Beck
9 Chung H. Han
Keith M. Staub
10 Damon A. Thayer
Jasmin Yang
11 U.S. Attorney’s Office
300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 7516
12 Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-0805
13 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
14 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
15 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
16 Counsel for Defendant-Respondents
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Yang Decl., Ex. 1 - 13

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 16 of 66 Page ID
#:7089
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 17 of 66 Page ID
#:7090

From: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC)

To: Oliver Rocos
Cc: Naeun Rim; Jimmy Threatt; Sara Norman; Don Specter; Han, Chung (USACAC); Green, Paul (USACAC); Beck,
Daniel (USACAC); Staub, Keith (USACAC)
Subject: RE: Lompoc - Request for Meet and Confer
Date: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 10:34:23 AM
Attachments: Module 4 - Inmate Isolation _ Quarantine v2.0.pdf
module_3_screening_testing _v3.0_20201216 (2).pdf
module_6_inmate_movement_v1_20201103.pdf

Dear Ollie,

As to the redacted version of the under seal filings, as I have previously explained, Respondents
should be excused from the requirement to file redacted versions of these documents because the
subject matter of the information contained in those filings implicates the Privacy Act (i.e., a class
member’s very inclusion on the class list indicates he either is of a certain age or has a health
condition that fits the class definition) and contains law enforcement sensitive information that
cannot be publicly filed. Redacting all of the filings would be a time-consuming and resource-
intensive undertaking. In addition, there would be limited public benefit from filing the redacted
versions because, especially in the case of the class lists and the worksheets, nearly the entirety of
those documents would need to be redacted. We have brought this up several times, including in e-
mails on 9/4 and 11/23. In our 11/23 correspondence, I asked you specifically if you were
communicating that Petitioners would not agree that Respondents would be excused from the local
rule. You did not respond to my query, and your December 25 email does not acknowledge my prior
correspondence on this issue. Please let me know by COB on January 4 whether I can represent that
Petitioners do not oppose the relief requested in a motion to be excused from the requirement of
filing redacted copies of the under seal filings so that Respondents can file the motion to put the
issue to rest.

As to the other subjects raised in your email:

(1) USPO: As I have explained previously and as detailed in the 11/5 Arnold Declaration filed at
Dkt. 119, the staff at FCC Lompoc have diligently worked with the USPO in ED Cal to address
this issue and we have included emails with the Deputy Chief Probation Officer in that
district (Ex. B) in which the USPO has explained that they will not prioritize relocation
requests for inmates with more than 18 months remaining on their sentences. Staff at FCC
Lompoc have even gone to the Administrative Office of US Courts to ask about this issue and
the answer is the same. There is nothing more that FCC Lompoc can do with respect to the
ED Cal USPO’s policy for prioritizing inmates for relocation requests depending on their
release dates.
(2) Mr. : Putting aside the fact that the BOP takes into account programmatic needs
when deciding to place inmates to RRCs, as we have explained previously, there are no RRCs
in ED Cal for RRC placement, so it is not as if Mr. can simply be transferred to an RRC
in that district in lieu of home confinement. In addition, we have inquired and confirmed
that USPO did not have difficulty obtaining his medical records. As Chung stated on her
12/23 e-mail to you, we have confirmed that Mr. may submit an alternate address
outside of ED Cal by contacting his Unit Team. Also as you are already aware, Mr. is
awaiting transfer to his designated facility where he can participate in an RDAP program.
(3) Testing: We have previously produced the BOP testing modules to Petitioners. FCC Lompoc

Yang Decl., Ex. 2 - 14

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 18 of 66 Page ID
#:7091

is complying with the procedures identified in those modules. In particular Module 6 details
how all incoming inmates are tested via PCR tests and quarantined/isolated as appropriate,
Module 3 discusses testing and indications for testing, and Module 4 discusses isolation and
quarantine. The most current versions of those modules is attached for your reference.
(4) The BOP uses the same criteria to determine whether an individual is recovered from
COVID-19 as the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-in-home-
patients.html

Finally, you do not address the fact that circumstances have changed dramatically since the Court
entered its preliminary injunction in July. Given that the risk of COVID-19 is now much higher in the
community than it is within FCC Lompoc (resulting in 0% ICU capacity in Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, and San Bernardino counties), home confinement may no longer be the safest way to
protect inmates from COVID-19. In contrast to the rising number of cases in California, the BOP has
largely managed to control the spread of COVID-19 within its institutions, including at FCC Lompoc.

Thanks,

Jasmin

From: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, December 25, 2020 8:19 AM
To: Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>; Sara Norman
<[email protected]>; Don Specter <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Lompoc - Request for Meet and Confer

Chung,

In light of Mr. Engleman’s declaration and the progress that has been made with transferring
inmates, it seems that there is some further room to meet and confer here and reach a negotiated
solution with respect to the remaining inmates granted HC that have not yet been transferred as
well as future inmates granted HC.

To that end, we request an update as soon as possible on the progress you have been able to make
with the USPO, if any. We further request an update on what Respondents can do to avoid any
issues with the USPO to ensure inmates granted HC are released in a timely manner. For example,
can Mr. and others in his situation simply be transferred to a halfway house rather than to
home confinement? Additionally, the COVID-19 numbers in Lompoc have been fluctuating quickly,
rising from 15 to 25 and then dropping to just 4 a couple of days later. Please confirm what testing
is being completed in FCI Lompoc and USP Lompoc, and the criteria used to determine an individual
has recovered from COVID-19.

Hopefully we can continue to make sufficient progress here that a motion will become unnecessary,

Yang Decl., Ex. 2 - 15

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 19 of 66 Page ID
#:7092

but please note that we continue to see this as an urgent and desperate situation that may require
judicial resolution soon. While the Courts and your offices are closed for an extended period over
the holidays, those in Lompoc and their families remain extremely concerned for their health and
safety.

Finally, please confirm that you’ll file redacted copies of the filing per the local rules.

Best wishes for the holiday,

Ollie

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100 |E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

From: Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2020 10:42 AM
To: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>; Sara Norman
<[email protected]>; Don Specter <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Lompoc - Request for Meet and Confer

Ollie:

The unfortunate death of Mr. has nothing whatsoever to do with current conditions at
Lompoc. Mr. was transported from Lompoc to a local hospital on August 20, 2020, where he
died on December 15, 2020—as stated in the link you attach. In other words, Mr. had not
been in the BOP’s custody for the last four months. In addition, as reported, Mr. was
transported from Lompoc to the local hospital in August “due to progressive paralysis requiring
bedside care”—not because of complications associated with the coronavirus. We therefore believe
that any motion brought “in the next few days” based on Mr. ’s death would be in bad faith,
especially since Thursday and Friday are federal holidays. Further, we had our meet and confer
discussion on December 21, which would mean that the earliest Petitioners could bring the motion
is December 28 under L.R. 7-3.

We have repeatedly explained why Respondents cannot agree to Petitioners’ demands, and have
looked into the reasons why certain inmates have not been placed in home confinement. Yesterday
we filed the Declaration of James Engleman, Dkt. 148, providing a status update with information
regarding recent home confinement transfers, dates for home confinement placement, and the
reasons why certain inmates are still in process. As to inmate , although we followed up
to see if there are any issues with the USPO obtaining his medical records, we are told this is not an
issue. If Mr. would like to submit an address outside E.D. Cal. to speed up the placement

Yang Decl., Ex. 2 - 16

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 20 of 66 Page ID
#:7093

process, he is able to do that and can contact his Unit Team to submit a different address.

Finally, Lompoc has successfully contained the coronavirus outbreak earlier in the month which was
introduced into the institution by inmates brought in through prisoner movement. Currently, there
are only 4 positive inmate cases of COVID-19 at Lompoc compared to the skyrocketing number of
infection in Los Angeles County and California generally. There is simply no indication that inmates
are safer in home confinement given the public rate of infection, and the strain on California’s
hospital system resulting in the lack of ICU beds and the rising number of deaths. This reality is
reflected in the sad fact that four inmates who were placed in home confinement have died from
the coronavirus.

If Petitioners still insist upon bringing a motion, we request that you not do it on Christmas Eve or
Christmas Day given the lack of emergency. The Court and our offices, moreover, are closed, and our
BOP contact will be spending some well-deserved time off during the holiday.

If you celebrate Christmas, wishing you and yours a Happy Christmas. -Chung

From: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 10:40 AM
To: Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>; Sara Norman
<[email protected]>; Don Specter <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Lompoc - Request for Meet and Confer

Chung,

After our call yesterday we learned from the press, not from Respondents, that a member of the
class, Mr. , died from COVID-19 on Tuesday last week. https://stl.news/federal-
inmate-christopher-carey-dies-from-covid-19/426165/ He had caught COVID-19 twice at Lompoc,
once in May and again in August. His death and the growing number of COVID-19 cases highlights
the extreme urgency of getting those who have been granted home confinement transferred to
home confinement. It also highlights that all of those inmates who meet the class definition should
be reviewed without the categorical barriers we have previously identified so that they, and those
inmates who remain at Lompoc, have the best chance of avoiding COVID-19.

As previously discussed, both in meet and confers and in a number of written and oral submissions
to the court, Petitioners consider Respondents’ failure to transfer inmates granted home
confinement to home confinement within 14 days of that grant a violation of the Preliminary
Injunction. Similarly, Petitioners consider that Respondents’ use of categorical barriers to eligibility
for home confinement also violates the Preliminary Injunction. In light of the extreme urgency and
the fact that our discussions have not generated any progress whatsoever on these matters, we
intend to file a motion in the next few days seeking an order in substantially the following terms:

1) The immediate re-evaluation for home confinement of all class members previously denied

Yang Decl., Ex. 2 - 17

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 21 of 66 Page ID
#:7094

home confinement, where Respondents:

a. Assign substantial weight to the inmate’s risk factors for severe illness and death
from COVID-19 based on age (over 50) or Underlying Health Conditions;
b. Eliminate all requirements that the class member have served some portion of his
or her sentence in order to be eligible for home confinement;
c. Eliminate as a categorical exclusion to eligibility for home confinement any
requirement that a class member:
i. Not have a prior offense that is violent, sexual, or terrorism-related in
nature;
ii. Be without incident reports in the past 12 months, regardless of the
severity level;
iii. Have a PATTERN score of LOW or lower.
d. Submit a declaration within 28 days identifying the additional class members
approved for transfer to home confinement and specifying for each approved class
member whether he has already been transferred and, if not, the anticipated date of
transfer.

2) Respondents shall transfer out of Lompoc each class member granted home confinement
within 14 days of each grant.

3) Respondents shall abide by this order for all future home confinement reviews of new class
members.

4) Respondents shall file with the Court a list of new class members on the first Monday of
every month.

5) Respondents shall file with the Court the Review Worksheets and reasons for denial of home
confinement to any new class members, if any, within 28 days of identifying them on a new
class list.

Please let us know by 2:00 p.m. Wednesday if you agree to an order in these terms.

Best regards,

Ollie

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100 |E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

From: Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 10:11 AM

Yang Decl., Ex. 2 - 18

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 22 of 66 Page ID
#:7095

To: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>;

Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>; Sara Norman
<[email protected]>; Don Specter <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Lompoc - Request for Meet and Confer

Ollie: I have hearing at 10:30 that is expected to be completed by 11:30. Can we move the call to
11:45 to ensure that it will be done by then? We can use my dial-in for the call:

844-861-4298
346-430#

Thanks, Chung

From: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 8:18 PM
To: Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>; Sara Norman
<[email protected]>; Don Specter <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Lompoc - Request for Meet and Confer

Hi Chung,

Great, Monday at 11:30 works. I’d be grateful if you could circulate a dial in.

So that we are all prepared for the call and can have a substantive discussion, our position on this
issue is materially the same as that set out in the November 17 joint status report (Dkt. No 120) and
the related sections of the November 18 proposed order (Dkt. No. 122). Additionally, we are aware
of a recent order granted in the Danbury action, copy attached. Petitioners intend to seek an order
that is substantially similar in nature.

We look forward to speaking with you,

Ollie

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100 |E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

From: Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 8:26 AM

Yang Decl., Ex. 2 - 19

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 23 of 66 Page ID
#:7096

To: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>;

Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>; Sara Norman
<[email protected]>; Don Specter <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Lompoc - Request for Meet and Confer

Ollie: We are available Monday at 11:30 or Tuesday at 10:00. Please let us know if either of these
dates and times work for you. Thanks, Chung

From: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 9:57 PM
To: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>; Sara Norman
<[email protected]>; Don Specter <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Lompoc - Request for Meet and Confer

Counsel,

I write to follow up on my email below requesting a meet and confer on the delay between the dates
on which inmates are being granted home confinement and the dates they are being transferred. As
you may have heard, it was announced today that another Lompoc inmate has died from COVID-19
(though they died some time ago) and the number of infections at Lompoc has risen to 25. These
factors only increase the urgency of this issue.

Please let us know as soon as possible when you are available to meet and confer.

Best,

Ollie

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100 |E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

From: Oliver Rocos

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:24 PM
To: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Green, Paul (USACAC)
<[email protected]>; Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC)
<[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>; Sara Norman
<[email protected]>; Don Specter <[email protected]>

Yang Decl., Ex. 2 - 20

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 24 of 66 Page ID
#:7097

Subject: Lompoc - Request for Meet and Confer

Counsel,

As we are sure you are aware, COVID-19 cases in Lompoc are rising again and threatening to harm
prisoners and staff alike. As we have previously discussed, including in connection with the
November 24 hearing, Petitioners are extremely concerned with the very long gap between class
members being granted home confinement and them actually being transferred. The December 4
declaration of James Engleman stated that at least 24 inmates that have been approved for home
confinement more than a month ago still do not have release dates. Dkt. No. 134. In fact, one of
those individuals was approved for home confinement as far back as July 29 ( ), and
others were approved in August.

As you know, Petitioners intend to seek an order requiring that the duration between the granting of
home confinement and transfer be not more than 14 days. See e.g., Dkt. No. 122. We write to
request a meet and confer on this issue. The growing cases of COVID-19 at Lompoc mean this issue
is urgent, so please let us know your earliest availability.

Best,

Ollie

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100
F: 310.201.2110
E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
www.BirdMarella.com

Yang Decl., Ex. 2 - 21

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 25 of 66 Page ID
#:7098
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 26 of 66 Page ID
#:7099

From: Oliver Rocos

To: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC)
Cc: Naeun Rim; Jimmy Threatt; [email protected]; [email protected]; Green, Paul (USACAC); Han,
Chung (USACAC); Beck, Daniel (USACAC); Staub, Keith (USACAC)
Subject: RE: Torres v. Milusnic - Defendants-Respondents" Requests for Production and Interrogatories
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:37:32 PM
Attachments: Petitioners" Requests for Production.pdf

Jasmin,

Thank you so much. There is no problem with agreeing an extension on the motion to compel,
though I am certain that we can resolve these discovery issues quickly enough.

Additionally, see attached Petitioners’ Requests for Production.

Best regards,

Ollie

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100 |E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

From: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 5:10 PM
To: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; [email protected]; Green, Paul (USACAC)
<[email protected]>; Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC)
<[email protected]>; Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Torres v. Milusnic - Defendants-Respondents' Requests for Production and
Interrogatories

Ollie,

While normally I would grant two-week extension on discovery as a matter of professional courtesy,
because our discovery cutoff is 2/1, absent court approval to bring a motion to compel (should one
be necessary) after 2/1, we are cautious of granting the extension through 2/1.

We’ll agree to a 1 week extension on the responses for now through 1/25, and if we can work out a
stipulation and received a signed order next week that Respondents may bring a motion to compel
within 14 days after responses are served (we could raise the issue before Judge Castillo on Thursday
if you like), we could agree to a further extension through that second week through 2/1.

Yang Decl., Ex. 3 - 22

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 27 of 66 Page ID
#:7100

Separately, I understand that Bart and Don have spoken about rescheduling the mediation with
Judge Ramirez to Thursday, February 18. We will also look into obtaining numbers on the
vaccinations at Terminal Island and Lompoc.

Happy to discuss more over the phone if you’d like.

Thanks,

Jasmin

From: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 3:05 PM
To: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Torres v. Milusnic - Defendants-Respondents' Requests for Production and
Interrogatories

Jasmin,

Due to the holidays and delays caused by various individuals catching COVID-19, we would
appreciate some additional time to respond to these requests. Would you agree to a 2 week
extension (to February 1, 2021)?

Thanks,

Ollie

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100 |E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

From: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 4:55 PM
To: Terry W. Bird <[email protected]>; Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt
<[email protected]>; Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; Peter Bibring <[email protected]>; Peter Eliasberg
<[email protected]>
Subject: Torres v. Milusnic - Defendants-Respondents' Requests for Production and Interrogatories

Dear Counsel,

Yang Decl., Ex. 3 - 23

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 28 of 66 Page ID
#:7101

Please find attached Defendants-Respondents’ First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests
for Production. Please let me know if there are any objections to service of this written discovery via
this e-mail and if you would like me to mail copies to your offices.

Thank you,

Jasmin

Yang Decl., Ex. 3 - 24

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 29 of 66 Page ID
#:7102
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 30 of 66 Page ID
#:7103

From: Beck, Daniel (USACAC)

To: Oliver Rocos; Peter Eliasberg; Peter Bibring; Don Specter; Sara Norman; Naeun Rim; Jimmy Threatt
Cc: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC); Han, Chung (USACAC); Staub, Keith (USACAC); Green, Paul (USACAC)
Subject: Torres v. Milusnic - Expert Reports
Date: Monday, February 1, 2021 5:00:24 PM
Attachments: Dr. Jeffrey Beard Lompoc Report.pdf
Asma Tekbali Lompoc Report.pdf
Torres Defendants Expert Reports.pdf

Counsel, please see the attached expert reports and disclosures in this matter.

Regards,

Dan

Daniel A. Beck | Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office | Central District of California
300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 7516 | Los Angeles, CA 90012
T: (213) 894-2574 | F: (213) 894-7819 | [email protected]

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 25

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 31 of 66 Page ID
#:7104
Tekbali 1

Expert Report of Asma Tekbali

Introduction
My career in public health began at Dallas County Health and Human Services, where I
served as a microbiologist beginning in 2013. In this role I performed complex microbiological
testing that included RT-PCR on influenza, West Nile Virus, and other highly infectious

program for antibiotic resistant N. gonorrhoeae. I received my Master of Public Health from
New York University in 2019, with a focus on Global Health. I have been employed as an
Infection Preventionist at Lenox Hill Hospital-Northwell Health for just over a year. Infection
preventionists serve as experts in epidemiology within a hospital setting, with patient, staff, and
visitor safety as our top priority. Our broad responsibilities include monitoring infections,
medically isolating patients, data management, staff and visitor safety, and patient care. As an
infection preventionist, I have been on the frontlines of the pandemic, continually adapting to the
ever-evolving body of knowledge as it relates to epidemiology and disseminating this
information to the entire hospital.
Furthermore, I am involved in the development of infection control protocols,
consultation on appropriate testing, and engagement with government agencies such as the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and city/state public health departments. I worked at the
epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City, and it is believed that Northwell Health
admitted and cared for the most COVID-19 patients in the world. I am the point of contact
between New York City and State Departments of Health, and am responsible for reporting our
inpatient COVID-19 data on a daily basis. During my time at Lenox Hill Hospital, I also became
a published scholar on COVID-19 as it relates to pregnant women and ICU admissions in our
hospital system9.10.
I was previously retained by the United States Department of Justice as an expert witness
for three cases: Chunn et al v. Edge, Case No. 1:20-cv-01590-RPK-RLM (Eastern District of
New York), Martinez-Brooks et al v. Easter, Case No. 3:20-cv-0059-MPS (District of
Connecticut), Wilson et al. v. Ponce et al, Case No. 2:20-cv-04451-MWF-MRW (Central
District of California).

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 26

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 32 of 66 Page ID
#:7105
Tekbali 2

California to provide my expert opinion in the case of Torres et al., v Milusnic et al Case No. CV
20-4450-CBM-PVC(X). I have been provided with documents and reports to review and have
been able to apply my knowledge on infection control and prevention in order to determine
whether the Federal Correctional Complex, Lompoc (FCC Lompoc) has adequately responded to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
The pandemic has ravaged the nation in an unprecedented way and affected nearly every
aspect of life as we know it. Currently, the United States is experiencing an astonishing and
devastating rise in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. As of January 29, 2021 there
have been over 433,000 deaths in the United States, and nearly 26 million documented cases,
according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Research Center. Prisons are uniquely at risk of
disease outbreak due to often crowded conditions and the disproportionate number of inmates
who suffer from underlying medical conditions such as hypertension and diabetes 1.
In the spring of 2020, the nation was unprepared with personal protective equipment
(PPE), testing availability, and intensive care unit (ICU) beds to take on the rapidly growing
cases. This was certainly the case in New York City in March, when testing was limited to cases
that were approved by the CDC. Providers were required to seek pre-approval and mail tests
offsite, resulting in prolonged turnaround times and leaving many untested. Before the city-wide
lockdown and mask mandate, infected individuals are believed to have spread the virus within
the community, thus causing the hospital system to become overwhelmed despite precautions.
Over eight months later, testing capacity has improved significantly, but cases continue to be on
the rise despite our improved knowledge about COVID-19.

identifying exposure risks, and screening protocols. Despite initiating the early pandemic
response plan, FCC Lompoc experienced a severe COVID-19 outbreak 10. The BOP responded by
limiting visitation, recreational activities, and ultimately limiting movement within each unit,
6
which was .
guidance also emphasizes the importance of educating inmates on protective measures to take
such as wearing a mask, social distancing, and hand hygiene, which was provided to inmates at
FCC Lompoc according to the inspection reports by Dr. Venters and Dr. Beard 12,13.

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 27

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 33 of 66 Page ID
#:7106
Tekbali 3

I understand that the first case of COVID-19 was identified at FCC Lompoc on March
30th and the inmate was immediately placed into isolation per CDC guidance 11. To date, there
have been 1,210 inmates who tested positive and recovered at FCC Lompoc, and of these
inmates, 892 remain in the facility. As of January 29, 2021, there is 1 positive inmate and 6
positive staff members2. I understand that of th
discontinue precautions since their first positive COVID-19 tests were on December 28, 2020,
and January 15, 2021. Per the CDC, precautions can be discontinued 10 days after symptom
onset and resolution of fever for at least 24 hours without antipyretics. While positive cases
remain, I can conclude that FCC Lompoc has effectively slowed the spread of COVID-19
through their infection control measures. The low number of positive cases compared with the
current COVID-19 crisis in the state of California is further evidence that the infection
control measures have been successful in the facility.
California currently has the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the country, with just
under 3.8 million confirmed positives. The worrying transmission of new variants, especially one
identified in California (CAL.20C) that has been linked to several large outbreaks in Santa Clara
County, has added more danger17. ction
prevention measures, divided into the following categories: masking, screening, testing,
disinfection and hand hygiene.
recent vaccination program was introduced.

Masking
Masking is the single most effective measure to take to prevent the transmission of
COVID-19. Masks work by containing respiratory droplets from an infected individual and
preventing the spread of the virus to other individuals. Petitioners allege that FCC Lompoc has

corrected complaint, page 25:12). The CDC issued a masking recommendation on April 3 rd, and
three days later, inmates at FCC Lompoc were issued a single surgical mask, and then three cloth
masks on April 14th (Cross Declaration).
ring masks, and the few who

stated that inmates were mostly compliant with masking during his inspection, and that mask

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 28

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 34 of 66 Page ID
#:7107
Tekbali 4

wearing by officers is enforced by supervisors who round on units 12. It is also stated in Dr.

night and weekend staff.

I spoke with Associate Warden Gutierrez and Health Services Administrator Mr.
Lawrence Cross on January 28th, 2021, and they explained that inmates are able to ask for a new
cloth mask at any time and will receive one without issue. They also described masking
compliance to be generally very good among staff and inmates, and if someone was found to be
not properly masked, they would be counseled to do so.

Screening
At FCC Lompoc, staff are screened upon entry in a manner that promotes social
distancing. I understand that the screening process takes place in the training center, and staff are
asked questions about COVID-19 symptoms that they have to answer verbally. The responses
are recorded on paper and temperatures are also taken. Dr. Venters considered this screening
process to be a strength, and Dr. Beard also described the process as consistent and efficient. I
was most impressed by the utilization of different colored wrist bands that are changed daily to
ensure staff members do not try to bypass the process. This practice goes above and beyond
CDC guidance. The effectiveness of the staff screening process is reflected in the current
numbers, with just 6 staff currently positive, and two of those staff members being able to
discontinue precautions because their first positive COVID-19 tests were on December 28, 2020,
and January 15, 2021.
In his report Dr. Venters identified screening deficiencies for inmates who have not yet
had COVID-19. The CDC currently advises correctional facilities to consider regular symptom
screening and temperature checks for inmates who have not yet tested positive until no additional
infections have been identified in the facility for 14 days. I believe this is a reasonable measure
to take, but since it is optional, I would not categorize it as a serious deficiency. Of note, Mr.
Cross states in his report that FCC Lompoc initiated regular symptom and temperature checks of
every inmate as of April 202011.
Dr. Venters further notes that the lack of daily screening process for inmates who work
outside of their housing area is a deficiency. On page 6 of his report, it is stated that per the

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 29

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 35 of 66 Page ID
#:7108
Tekbali 5

on a daily basis by being asked questions about current symptoms of COVID- .

Disinfection & Cleaning

Dr. Venters notes that he found housing areas to be clean with cleaning solution
abundantly available for personal spaces 12. Mr. Cross also confirms the availability of
disinfectant in the facility and states that inmates are encouraged to frequently clean their
personal areas11. On page 27 of his report, Dr. Venters found individuals he interviewed to be
concerned about a lack of disinfection of personal items when an inmate is suspected of having
COVID-
called to conduct high level disinfection in these circumstances, which is consistent with CDC
guidance. The individuals on the Strike Team are said to have received specialized training in
disinfection. Since the Strike Team are not in direct contact with a known positive COVID-19
individual and disinfecting the area of an individual suspected to have COVID-19, N95s are not

exposure to cleaning staff i and that cleaning staff should wear disposable
gowns and gloves for all cleaning tasks related to items or spaces of a suspected or confirmed
COVID-19 case16.
library area. Dr. Venters also found spray bottles of cleaning solution to be available throughout
the facility.

Testing
Testing was a difficult resource to secure at the start of this pandemic in March of 2020.
FCC Lompoc has expanded testing capabilities, however, that allow for inmates who are being

guidance for correctional and detention facilities.

I understand that FCC Lompoc collaborated with the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Health Department (LACDPH) in accordance with CDC guidance, and followed their
recommendation of mass testing in an effort to contain the outbreak. This mass testing initiative
resulted in removing those 182 inmates who tested negative to a protected space to prevent

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 30

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 36 of 66 Page ID
#:7109
Tekbali 6

infection. Further, this testing initiative provided the facility with the large number of inmates
who tested positive so that immediate action could be taken to gain control of the outbreak.

intakes, as a part of exit screening, for those in close contact with a known COVID-19 case, and
for those who show symptoms consistent with COVID-19. I understand that FCC Lompoc
performs inmate testing in compliance with this guidance, utilizing both rapid antigen tests and
PCR testing platforms. The BOP advises facilities to strategically use testing for symptomatic
and asymptomatic individuals, such as when a cluster of cases occur in a housing unit.

14
.
Testing as proof of recovery is not an advised practice per the CDC, nor is this testing strategy
utilized in my own hospital. It is not recommended to discontinue isolation, and instead a
symptom-based approach should be utilized3. Patients may continually test positive due to
remnant viral RNA that is no longer replication competent and persistently positive results can
occur for months after an infection. Petitioners state in their complaint that not retesting inmates
this is simply not an
evidence based practice, nor is it clinically indicated. FCC Lompoc correctly relies on the system
based approach to discontinue precautions after testing positive for COVID-19.
I learned during my conversation with Mr. Cross that testing is performed on
approximately 5% of the population on a weekly basis. This is around 100 inmates based on the
current census of 2023 inmates. It is also noted in the declaration of Mr. Cross (Paragraph 33,
Cross) that at that time the entire population of FCI Lompoc was classified as recovered from
COVID-19, and according to a recent report published by the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), immunity may last up to 8 months after infection 18.

Hand Hygiene
I was impressed with FCC Lompoc ion to quality improvement through
quarterly meetings. I was especially impressed by the hand hygiene project described in Dr.
12
. Hand
hygiene is considered to be the cornerstone of infection control and many hospitals develop plans
to observe, quantify, and improve hand hygiene through various methods. Dr. Beard notes in his

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 31

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 37 of 66 Page ID
#:7110
Tekbali 7

report that liquid soap dispensers were seen in bathrooms during his inspection of the facility.
Dr. Venters also stated all bathrooms had soap available, while only half were found to have
paper towels. I do not believe there are any deficiencies in terms of access to hand hygiene after
reviewing both inspection reports.

Vaccination
The state of California prioritized inmates for vaccination in phase 1B, which is the
current priority group receiving the vaccine. I understand that FCC Lompoc has offered the
vaccine to 441 inmates, and 242 received both the first and second doses so far. Of this 441, 197
inmates refused the vaccine. During our conversation, Mr. Cross stated that many inmates
approached him expressing regret over declining the vaccine initially and were interested in
receiving it once more doses are secured. He also said that prior to the vaccine roll out,
educational flyers on vaccine safety and effectiveness were posted in the units to combat any
vaccine hesitancy.
If we consider the number of recovered inmates with long-lasting immunity and the
growing number of vaccinated inmates, currently over 56% of the current population possesses
some level of protection from COVID-19. While that is not ideal for herd immunity to be
achieved, it provides a great foundation as vaccination efforts continue.

Conclusion
To conclude, FCC Lompoc has effectively responded to a significant COVID-19
outbreak by collaborating with local health departments, adapting to and implementing pandemic
response guidance from the CDC and BOP, constructing a COVID-19 hospital unit, and
providing masks and materials for hand hygiene to inmates. As the pandemic continues, I advise
the facility to continue their diligence , especially as it
relates to universal masking of both staff and inmates. With the threat of new variants, it might
be helpful for inmates to be encouraged to double-mask, as many experts are advising, for an
added layer of protection against these more transmissible strains.
In their complaint, petitioners request adequate testing and isolation, PPE, and proper
treatment and monitoring of inmates ill with the virus. Based on the materials I have been
provided, I have determined that FCC Lompoc has met these requests by ramping up testing in

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 32

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 38 of 66 Page ID
#:7111
Tekbali 8

the facility, , and designating the H-unit as the isolation

unit. Further, both Drs. Venters and Beard found that PPE supply was more than adequate and
available. In our conversation, Mr. Cross expressed that PPE supply has been robust and
consistent, emphasizing that it has never been an issue at the facility. In response to the

provide suppo had

seen in his numerous COVID-
efforts to stop transmission of the virus is the single, asymptomatic positive inmate who is
currently isolated at FCC Lompoc. While positive tests have occurred, they have not led to large
new outbreaks at the facility, which provides further proof that the infection control measures
have been effective and proper.
This virus has been exceptionally difficult to control outside of prison systems, and it has
proven to be nearly impossible to manage throughout the country even with increased knowledge
and capabilities. Many found the initial stages of the pandemic to be especially trying due to the
nationwide shortages of PPE, COVID-19 testing, disinfectant, and hand hygiene products. FCC
of
2020 as the entire country scrambled to slow the transmission. The steps the BOP took to
respond to and
effectiveness of these actions are reflected today. Particularly given the recent vaccination
efforts, I believe it is unlikely the facility will see a repeat of the spring 2020 outbreak.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

Executed on this 1st day of February 2021, in New York, New York.

Asma Tekbali

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 33

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 39 of 66 Page ID
#:7112
Tekbali 9

References:

1. Rabin, R. (2020, November 30). Prisons Are Covid-19 Hotbeds. When Should Inmates
Get the Vaccine? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/health/coronavirus-vaccine-
prisons.html
2. US BOP COVID-19 Data. https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/
3. Disposition of Non-Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-in-home-patients.html
4. CDC calls on Americans to wear masks to prevent COVID-19 spread. (2020, July 14).
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html
5. Duration of Isolation and Precautions for Adults with COVID-19. (n.d.). Retrieved
October 29, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-
isolation.html
6. Interim Considerations for SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Correctional and Detention Facilities.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-
detention/testing.html
7. Correctional and Detention Facilities. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/community/correction-detention/index.html
8. Tekbali A, Grünebaum A, Saraya A, McCullough L, Bornstein E, Chervenak FA.
Pregnant vs nonpregnant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and
coronavirus disease 2019 hospital admissions: the first 4 weeks in New York. Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223(1):126-127.
9. Blitz MJ, Grünebaum A, Tekbali A, et al. Intensive care unit admissions for pregnant and
nonpregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;S0002-
9378(20)30528-7.
10. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Health Services Division. Pandemic Response Plan, October
2012.
11. [25-2] Torres Cross Declaration ISO Respondents Opposition to Ex Parte TRO
Application.
12. -
13.

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 34

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 40 of 66 Page ID
#:7113
Tekbali 10

14. Exhibit 8. Declaration of Shamsher Samra, MD.

15. [25-1] Torres Engleman Declaration ISO Respondents Opposition to Ex Parte TRO
Application
16. Interim Recommendations for US Community Facilities with Suspected/Confirmed
Coronavirus Disease 2019. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2020, from
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/cleaning-
disinfection.html
17. Cowan, J., & Zimmer, C. (2021, January 27). What to Know About the California
Variant. Retrieved January 29, 2021, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/us/california-virus-variant.html
18. Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19. (2021, January 26). Retrieved
January 29, 2021, from https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-
immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 35

 Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 41 of 66 Page ID
#:7114

ASMA TEKBALI
, New York, New York 10028 | | @gmail.com

Education
Master of Public Health: Global Health, Bioethics May 2019
New York University New York, NY
Relevant coursework includes Data-Driven Decision Making, Social Determinants of Health, Biostatistics, Healthcare Policy &
Management. Member of Healthcare Consulting Organization. GPA: 3.75
Certificate: Epidemiology & Population Health 2017
Columbia University-Mailman School of Public Health New York, NY
Post-Baccalaureate Research Training Program 2015
Baylor College of Medicine-Human Genome Sequencing Center Houston, TX
Performed independent research while completing coursework alongside PhD students in the department of human genetics
Bachelor of Science: Biology, English & Chemistry 2007-2011
Texas Woman's University Denton, TX

Work History
Epidemiologist: Infection Preventionist August 2019 Current
Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health New York, NY
Oversee COVID-19 pandemic guidance for nurses, physicians, and other medical support staff
Investigate disease outbreaks within hospital system and report to government entities
Develop and implement isolation protocols
Analyze and collect infectious disease-related data through laboratory tests

Laboratory Test Developer Oct 2016 Jan 2019

Sema4 Genomics - Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory, Mount Sinai Joint-Venture New York, NY
Performed validation testing for product development of innovative newborn screening kit for multi-billion dollar growth
market
Streamlined automation processes by developing procedures, methods, and controls for six genetic disorders
Collaborated with physicians, technologists, and vendors to optimize department communication and improve workflow
Developed program for efficient sample tracking that has been adopted and utilized throughout the company
Executed key analyses and tests including Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) and non-invasive prenatal testing

Diagnostic Laboratory Scientist Jul 2015 - Jul 2016

Genesis Genetics - Preimplantation Genetic Testing Laboratory Houston, TX
Performed complex DNA amplification of various cell-types and collaborated with embryologists to optimize DNA quality
Achieved exceptional individual turnaround time per sample at 2.2 days to process and report results to client
Facilitated Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) certification of laboratory
Analyzed and interpreted sequencing results for patient reports; recommended whether embryos were safe for IVF transfer

Lead Microbiologist Jan 2013 - Jan 2014

Dallas County Department of Health and Human Services Dallas, TX
Engaged in highly critical containment of bioterrorism agents including E.coli 0157, Salmonella species, and Y.pestis
Executed rapid detection of N. gonorrheae via rRNA amplification, and tagged DNA/RNA hybridization
Conducted genetic typing of Influenza clinical samples using RT-PCR in collaboration with Centers for Disease Control
Collaborated with epidemiologists to meet the growing public health needs of Dallas Fort-Worth

Publications
1. -pregnant SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Hospital Admissions: The first 4 weeks in
American Journal of Obstetrics.
2. M. Blitz, A. Grünebaum, A. -Pregnant Women with
COVID- American Journal of Obstetrics
3. F. Chervenak, L. McCullough, A. Tekbali, et al. Professionally Responsible COVID-19 Vaccination counseling of OB/GYN
Patients . American Journal of Obstetrics. Accepted for publication January 2021
Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 36
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 42 of 66 Page ID
#:7115

Expert Witness Fee Schedule for Asma Tekbali

Case examination will be billed at $350 hour.

Testimony preparation will be billed at $350 per hour.

Deposition and court testimony will be billed at $2800 per day, regardless of actual
hours.

Yang Decl., Ex. 4 - 37

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 43 of 66 Page ID
#:7116

EXHIBIT 5
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 44 of 66 Page ID
#:7117

From: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC)

To: Oliver Rocos
Cc: Naeun Rim; Jimmy Threatt; [email protected]; [email protected]; Green, Paul (USACAC); Han,
Chung (USACAC); Beck, Daniel (USACAC); Staub, Keith (USACAC)
Subject: Torres - Respondents" Objections to Plaintiff"s RFPs
Date: Thursday, February 18, 2021 6:22:43 PM
Attachments: Torres objections to Plaintiff"s RFP.pdf

Ollie,

Please find attached Respondents’ objections to Petitioners’ RFP.

Thanks,

Jasmin

From: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:37 PM
To: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; [email protected]; Green, Paul (USACAC)
<[email protected]>; Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC)
<[email protected]>; Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Torres v. Milusnic - Defendants-Respondents' Requests for Production and
Interrogatories

Jasmin,

Thank you so much. There is no problem with agreeing an extension on the motion to compel,
though I am certain that we can resolve these discovery issues quickly enough.

Additionally, see attached Petitioners’ Requests for Production.

Best regards,

Ollie

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100 |E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

From: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 5:10 PM
To: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>

Yang Decl., Ex. 5 - 38

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 45 of 66 Page ID
#:7118

Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>;

[email protected]; [email protected]; Green, Paul (USACAC)
<[email protected]>; Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC)
<[email protected]>; Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Torres v. Milusnic - Defendants-Respondents' Requests for Production and
Interrogatories

Ollie,

While normally I would grant two-week extension on discovery as a matter of professional courtesy,
because our discovery cutoff is 2/1, absent court approval to bring a motion to compel (should one
be necessary) after 2/1, we are cautious of granting the extension through 2/1.

We’ll agree to a 1 week extension on the responses for now through 1/25, and if we can work out a
stipulation and received a signed order next week that Respondents may bring a motion to compel
within 14 days after responses are served (we could raise the issue before Judge Castillo on Thursday
if you like), we could agree to a further extension through that second week through 2/1.

Separately, I understand that Bart and Don have spoken about rescheduling the mediation with
Judge Ramirez to Thursday, February 18. We will also look into obtaining numbers on the
vaccinations at Terminal Island and Lompoc.

Happy to discuss more over the phone if you’d like.

Thanks,

Jasmin

From: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 3:05 PM
To: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Torres v. Milusnic - Defendants-Respondents' Requests for Production and
Interrogatories

Jasmin,

Due to the holidays and delays caused by various individuals catching COVID-19, we would
appreciate some additional time to respond to these requests. Would you agree to a 2 week
extension (to February 1, 2021)?

Thanks,

Ollie

Yang Decl., Ex. 5 - 39

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 46 of 66 Page ID
#:7119

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100 |E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

From: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 4:55 PM
To: Terry W. Bird <[email protected]>; Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt
<[email protected]>; Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; Peter Bibring <[email protected]>; Peter Eliasberg
<[email protected]>
Subject: Torres v. Milusnic - Defendants-Respondents' Requests for Production and Interrogatories

Dear Counsel,

Please find attached Defendants-Respondents’ First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests
for Production. Please let me know if there are any objections to service of this written discovery via
this e-mail and if you would like me to mail copies to your offices.

Thank you,

Jasmin

Yang Decl., Ex. 5 - 40

 Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 47 of 66 Page ID
#:7120

1 TRACY L. WILKISON
Acting United States Attorney
2 DAVID M. HARRIS
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Chief, Civil Division
JOANNE S. OSINOFF
4 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, General Civil Section
5 KEITH M. STAUB (Cal. Bar No. 137909)
CHUNG H. HAN (Cal. Bar No. 191757)
6 DANIEL A. BECK (Cal Bar. 204496)
JASMIN YANG (Cal. Bar No. 255254)
7 PAUL B. GREEN (Cal. Bar No. 300847)
Assistant United States Attorney
8 Federal Building, Suite 7516
300 North Los Angeles Street
9 Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-7423
10 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819
E-mail: [email protected]
11 [email protected]
[email protected]
12 [email protected]
[email protected]
13
Attorneys for Defendants-Respondents
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
WESTERN DIVISION
17
YONNEDIL CARROR TORRES; et No. CV 20-4450- CBM-PVCx
18 al.,
DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS’
19 Plaintiff-Petitioners, OBJECTION TO PETITIONERS’
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
20 v.
21 LOUIS MILUSNIC, et al., Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall
United States District Judge
22 Defendants-Respondents.
23
24
Defendants-Respondents Louis Milusnic and Michael L. Carvajal
25
(“Respondents”), by and through undersigned counsel, object to Plaintiff-Petitioners
26
(“Petitioners”) Yonnedil Carror Torres, Vincent Reed, Felix Samuel Garcia, Andre
27
Brown, and Shawn L. Fears’ Requests for Production (the “Requests”) as follows:
28
1
Yang Decl., Ex. 5 - 41
 Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 48 of 66 Page ID
#:7121

1 Respondents object to the Requests for being untimely. The Court’s Scheduling
2 Order provides that fact discovery shall be completed on or before February 1, 2021.
3 Dkt. No. 130 (emphasis added). See also Court’s Standing Order (Dkt. No. 7)
4 (“discovery cut-off date” is “the final day for completion of discovery, including
5 resolution of all discovery motions.”) (Court’s emphasis). Because the Requests were
6 propounded on January 19, 2021, less than thirty days before the fact discovery cutoff
7 and without allowing sufficient time for responses to be served under Federal Rule of
8 Civil Procedure 34 prior to February 1, 2021, they are untimely. See Whittaker Corp. v.
9 Execuair Corp., 736 F.2d 1341, 1347 (9th Cir.1984) (“The overall purpose of a
10 discovery cutoff date is to protect the parties from a continuing burden of producing
11 evidence and to assure them adequate time to prepare for trial.”); Miller v. Rufion, 2010
12 WL 4137278, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) (“discovery requests must be served at
13 least 30 days prior to the discovery deadline.”); Mason v. Martinez, 2016 WL 1183591
14 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2016) (denying motion to compel where requests for
15 production were untimely); Hahn v. Massage Envy Franchising, Inc., 2014 WL
16 12899290 at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2014) (noting that defendant was well within its right
17 not to refuse to respond to untimely document request, denying motion to compel, and
18 finding motion to compel was not substantially justified).
19 Petitioners have known about the fact discovery cutoff since November 24, 2020
20 (Dkt. No. 130) and there is no good cause to excuse the untimely service of the Requests
21 or to reopen fact discovery. In light of the untimely nature of the Requests, Respondents
22 will not produce any documents responsive to the Requests.
23 Respondents further object to the Requests on the bases of relevance, attorney-
24 client privilege, and work-product privilege. Respondents further object to the Requests
25 as each Request seeks “all document” and/or “all communications.” These overbroad
26 requests fail to comply with Federal Rule Civil Procedure 34(b)(1)(A) which requires
27 that requests for production describe each item or category of item requested with
28 “reasonable particularity.” Respondents further object that the Requests are
2
Yang Decl., Ex. 5 - 42
 Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 49 of 66 Page ID
#:7122

1 disproportionate to the needs of the case, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and are
2 cumulative of prior requests, including the requests to which Respondents previously
3 produced documents BOP_LOMPOC_0000001-0008322.
4
5 Dated: February 18, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
6 TRACY L. WILKISON
United States Attorney
7 DAVID M. HARRIS
Assistant United States Attorney
8 Chief, Civil Division
JOANNE S. OSINOFF
9 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, General Civil Section
10
11 /s/ Jasmin Yang
JASMIN YANG
12 Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Respondents
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Yang Decl., Ex. 5 - 43
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 50 of 66 Page ID
#:7123

EXHIBIT
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 51 of 66 Page ID
#:7124

From: Naeun Rim

To: Marlene Ramirez; Oliver Rocos; Han, Chung (USACAC); Shoshana E. Bannett; [email protected]; Dorothy
Wolpert; Jimmy Threatt; Christopher J. Lee; Kate S. Shin; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Terry W. Bird; Thayer, Damon (USACAC); Beck, Daniel (USACAC); Staub, Keith
(USACAC); Yang, Jasmin (USACAC); Green, Paul (USACAC)
Subject: RE: Calendar with Zoom Information - Status Conference (Referral - Dkt. 151), CV 20-4450 CBM (PVCx),
Yonnedil Carror Torres et al v. Louis Milusnic, et al.
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:32:41 PM
Attachments: image001.png

Marlene,

Petitioners would like to inform Judge Castillo that the parties failed to settle this matter.

Naeun Rim
Principal
O: 310.201.2100
F: 310.201.2110
E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
www.BirdMarella.com

From: Naeun Rim

Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 11:16 AM
To: Marlene Ramirez <[email protected]>; Oliver Rocos
<[email protected]>; Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Shoshana E. Bannett
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Dorothy Wolpert
<[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>; Christopher J. Lee
<[email protected]>; Kate S. Shin <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Terry W. Bird <[email protected]>; Thayer,
Damon (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Calendar with Zoom Information - Status Conference (Referral - Dkt. 151), CV 20-4450
CBM (PVCx), Yonnedil Carror Torres et al v. Louis Milusnic, et al.

Marlene—Petitioners would like Judge Castillo to know that we are still in the process of settlement
discussions. A settlement has not yet been reached, but we expect to have a more substantive
update for the Court later this week. Thank you.

Naeun Rim
Principal
O: 310.201.2100
F: 310.201.2110

Yang Decl., Ex. 6 - 44

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 52 of 66 Page ID
#:7125

E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
www.BirdMarella.com

From: Marlene Ramirez <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 12:30 PM
To: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Shoshana E. Bannett <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; Dorothy Wolpert <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt
<[email protected]>; Christopher J. Lee <[email protected]>; Kate S. Shin
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Terry W. Bird <[email protected]>; Thayer, Damon (USACAC)
<[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Staub, Keith
(USACAC) <[email protected]>; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Green, Paul
(USACAC) <[email protected]>
Subject: Calendar with Zoom Information - Status Conference (Referral - Dkt. 151), CV 20-4450 CBM
(PVCx), Yonnedil Carror Torres et al v. Louis Milusnic, et al.

Dear Counsel,

Please use attached Zoom information that I attached to our calendar for our Status Conference.

Status Conference set for Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 10:30am.

Thank you.

9770-Blue

From: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 4:27 PM
To: Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Marlene Ramirez
<[email protected]>; nrim_birdmarella.com <[email protected]>;
Shoshana E. Bannett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Dorothy Wolpert
<[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>; Christopher J. Lee
<[email protected]>; Kate S. Shin <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Terry W. Bird <[email protected]>; Thayer,
Damon (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>;

Yang Decl., Ex. 6 - 45

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 53 of 66 Page ID
#:7126

Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Setting Status Conference (Referral - Dkt. 151), CV 20-4450 CBM (PVCx), Yonnedil Carror
Torres et al v. Louis Milusnic, et al.

CAUTION - EXTERNAL:

Dear Ms. Ramirez,

Thank you so much for your email. Petitioners’ counsel are unfortunately unavailable next week, but
we have consulted with Respondents and the next available date on which all counsel are available is
Thursday, January 21. Please let us know if that date is suitable. Petitioners’ counsel will be Naeun
Rim, Oliver Rocos, Donald Specter, and Sara Norman.

Since the last status report on these issues was filed six weeks ago and the parties have continued
meeting and conferring in order to resolve their disagreements, Petitioners intend to file a short
updated list of the remaining issues two days before the status conference.

Respectfully,

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100 |E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

From: Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 2:57 PM
To: Marlene Ramirez <[email protected]>; Naeun Rim
<[email protected]>; Shoshana E. Bannett <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; Dorothy Wolpert <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt
<[email protected]>; Christopher J. Lee <[email protected]>; Kate S. Shin
<[email protected]>; Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Terry W. Bird <[email protected]>; Thayer,
Damon (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Setting Status Conference (Referral - Dkt. 151), CV 20-4450 CBM (PVCx), Yonnedil Carror
Torres et al v. Louis Milusnic, et al.

Dear Ms. Ramirez:

Respondents’ counsel (Keith Staub, Daniel Beck, Jasmin Yang, Paul Green, and Chung Han), all copied
on your initial email, are available at any time on Wednesday, January 13, and Thursday, January 14,
until 3:00 p.m.

Yang Decl., Ex. 6 - 46

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 54 of 66 Page ID
#:7127

Respectfully,

Chung H. Han | Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office | Central District of California
300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 7516 | Los Angeles, CA 90012
T: (213) 894-0474 | F: (213) 894-7819 | [email protected]

From: Marlene Ramirez <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 1:48 PM
To: nrim_birdmarella.com <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Thayer, Damon (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Yang,
Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Subject: Setting Status Conference (Referral - Dkt. 151), CV 20-4450 CBM (PVCx), Yonnedil Carror
Torres et al v. Louis Milusnic, et al.

Dear Counsel,

Judge Castillo would like to set a status conference regarding the minute order that I attached.

Please provide your availability for next week.

Also, since there are several attorneys on this docket. Please provide the names of the attorneys
who would be participating. And let me know if I missed anyone.

Thank you.

9770-Blue

CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL:

Yang Decl., Ex. 6 - 47

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 55 of 66 Page ID
#:7128

EXHIBIT
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 56 of 66 Page ID
#:7129

From: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC)

To: Oliver Rocos; Naeun Rim; Beck, Daniel (USACAC); Han, Chung (USACAC); Staub, Keith (USACAC); Green, Paul
(USACAC)
Cc: Don Specter; Sara Norman; Patrick Booth; Jimmy Threatt
Subject: RE: Settlement Communication
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:26:42 AM

Thanks Ollie. Anytime tomorrow other than 12-1 works for us.

From: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 6:02 PM
To: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Beck,
Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Staub, Keith
(USACAC) <[email protected]>; Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Specter <[email protected]>; Sara Norman <[email protected]>; Patrick
Booth <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Settlement Communication

Jasmin,

Thanks for your email. We’ll email you tomorrow morning with a time. Are there any particular
times that do not work for you tomorrow afternoon?

Ollie

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100 |E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

From: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:55 PM
To: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Han,
Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Green,
Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Specter <[email protected]>; Sara Norman <[email protected]>; Patrick
Booth <[email protected]>; Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Settlement Communication

Dear Counsel,

I have not received a response from Petitioners as to times for the meet and confer on Respondents’
motion for summary judgment. Can you let me know if there is a convenient time for Petitioners
this afternoon or tomorrow to conduct this telephonic conference?

Yang Decl., Ex. 7 - 48

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 57 of 66 Page ID
#:7130

Thanks,

Jasmin

From: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC)

Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:29 PM
To: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Han,
Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Green, Paul
(USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Specter <[email protected]>; Sara Norman <[email protected]>; Patrick
Booth <[email protected]>; Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Settlement Communication

Naeun,

Thank you for your email and call yesterday. It is the BOP’s position that the parties are too far apart
for another session to be meaningful. Respondents therefore intend to go forward with a motion for
summary judgment pursuant to the scheduling order set by the Court on November 24, 2020. Dkt.
130. Please let us know what time you are available this week to discuss Respondents’ motion and
Petitioners’ anticipated motion to extend deadlines.

Thanks,

Jasmin

From: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:30 PM
To: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Green,
Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Specter <[email protected]>; Sara Norman <[email protected]>; Patrick
Booth <[email protected]>; Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Settlement Communication

All,

Please let us know whether we are going to attempt to further mediate this case, with a
representative from BOP with authority present. Otherwise, we will let Judge Castillo know
tomorrow that the parties have not settled. We will also seek an extension of deadlines for a site
visit to both institutions so that we can litigate this matter to conclusion. Thanks.

Yang Decl., Ex. 7 - 49

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 58 of 66 Page ID
#:7131

Naeun Rim
Principal
O: 310.201.2100
F: 310.201.2110
E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
www.BirdMarella.com

From: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 12:15 PM
To: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Han,
Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Green,
Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Specter <[email protected]>; Sara Norman <[email protected]>; Patrick
Booth <[email protected]>; Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Settlement Communication

Dear Counsel,

We appreciate your patience on our response. Attached is the BOP’s counter-proposal responding
to the terms you had proposed. After you have had the opportunity to review, feel free to let us
know when you’d like to have further discussions.

Thank you,

Jasmin

From: Naeun Rim <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 1:07 PM
To: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>;
Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Green,
Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Specter <[email protected]>; Sara Norman <[email protected]>; Patrick
Booth <[email protected]>; Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt
<[email protected]>
Subject: Settlement Communication

All,

Yang Decl., Ex. 7 - 50

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 59 of 66 Page ID
#:7132

Please let us know as

soon as possible whether it is possible to reach an agreement and we can get to work drafting a
long-form settlement agreement. We propose sending a joint email to Judge Castillo on Monday to
let him know that the parties have completed the mediation but are still in settlement discussions
and expect to submit a more concrete update by next Wednesday.

I.

Yang Decl., Ex. 7 - 51

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 60 of 66 Page ID
#:7133

II.

III.

Naeun Rim
Principal
O: 310.201.2100
F: 310.201.2110
E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Yang Decl., Ex. 7 - 52

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 61 of 66 Page ID
#:7134

www.BirdMarella.com

Yang Decl., Ex. 7 - 53

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 62 of 66 Page ID
#:7135

EXHIBIT
Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 63 of 66 Page ID
#:7136

From: Sara Norman

To: Green, Paul (USACAC); Oliver Rocos; Jimmy Threatt
Cc: Don Specter; Patrick Booth; Terry W. Bird; Naeun Rim; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC); Beck, Daniel (USACAC); Han,
Chung (USACAC); Staub, Keith (USACAC)
Subject: RE: Torres/Wilson -- correspondence
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 11:06:49 AM

Bart:

I must once again correct Respondents’ mischaracterization of my language. On the call yesterday, I
pointed out that we were proposing a fair and efficient plan for resolution of both cases that involved
our voluntary acceptance of severe restrictions on our rights to discovery in the Terminal Island
case. I simply stated the obvious: if you rejected our offer, we would not be bound by any such self-
imposed restrictions. Nobody ever threatened “limitless” discovery, just the discovery to which we
are entitled by law.

--Sara

From: Green, Paul (USACAC) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:34 PM
To: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>; Sara Norman <[email protected]>; Jimmy
Threatt <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Specter <[email protected]>; Patrick Booth <[email protected]>; Terry W. Bird
<[email protected]>; Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Yang, Jasmin (USACAC)
<[email protected]>; Beck, Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Han, Chung (USACAC)
<[email protected]>; Staub, Keith (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Torres/Wilson -- correspondence

Thank you Ollie, Sara, and Jimmy for speaking with Jasmin and me about Respondents’ anticipated
motion for summary judgment yesterday, and Petitioners’ request to re-open discovery and
extending all case deadlines in Torres, and a proposed schedule in Wilson, as outlined in Ollie’s email
after the call.

First, Respondents will oppose any motion or application to extend the lapsed discovery deadlines in
Torres. The scheduling conference was issued four months ago on November 24, 2020. Dkt. 130.
Prior to the scheduling conference, in the Joint Rule 26(f) report, filed by Petitioners on November
23, 2020, Petitioners repeatedly requested a February 1, 2021 discovery cutoff date. See Dkt. 127 at
3:16-17; 4:1-2; 5:26-3:1. Petitioners stated their intent to “depose individuals identified by
Respondents in their Rule 26(a) disclosures as well as Respondents’ expert witnesses,” and that the
“default number of ten depositions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a) will be sufficient.” Id. at 3:14-16.
Though Petitioners admitted that “Respondents already have provided certain written discovery
pursuant to the parties’ meet and confers and this Court’s prior order,” they “intend[ed] to seek
written discovery from Respondents including the production of relevant emails and other
communications and documents relating to their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” Id. at 3:23-
4:1. Petitioners also requested a trial date in mid-March 2021, and a pretrial conference in mid-
February 2021. See id. at 4:12-14. Following the scheduling conference on November 24, 2020,
although the Court accepted the parties’ discovery cutoff date, it set out further dates than those
requested by the parties in order allow for the completion of expert discovery, which closed on

Yang Decl., Ex. 8 - 54

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 64 of 66 Page ID
#:7137

March 15, 2021. Dkt. 130.

On December 8, 2020, the parties exchanged their initial disclosures. On December 18, 2020,
Respondents served Petitioners with a First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents. On January 15, 2020, Petitioners requested a two-week extension to
respond to the discovery, until the discovery cutoff date of February 1, 2021. Because of the cutoff
date, Respondents agreed to a one-week extension. On January 19, 2021, Petitioners thanked
Respondents for the extension and served for the first time 22 document demands. Of course, this
service was untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). In fact, Respondents objected to Petitioners
demands as untimely (in addition to other defects) on February 18, 2021. Petitioners did not move
to compel or seek to continue the discovery cutoff date after service of Respondents’ objections.

On February 18, 2021, the parties mediated before Judge Ramirez. At no point did Petitioners
request nor Respondents agree to stay or pause any litigation deadlines while the parties engaged in
mediation, especially given the parties’ unsuccessful mediation attempts in Wilson. In fact, the
discovery deadline had passed 17 days before the parties had even engaged in mediation.
Therefore, Petitioners’ contention that they could somehow justify reopening discovery because of
the scheduled mediation does not meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)’s good cause requirement. See Irise v.
Axure Software Sols., Inc., 2009 WL 3615973, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2009) (“Although Axure
attempts to blame its delay on ultimately unsuccessful settlement negotiations that occurred
between March 2009 and early May 2009, this is no excuse for Axure’s lack of diligence”); Fox v.
State Farm Ins. Co., 2016 WL 304784, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 26, 2016) (“Numerous courts have
found that settlement negotiations do not constitute good cause to modify a case schedule.”) (citing
cases). This is especially true where the scheduling order was issued four months ago. In spite of
Petitioners’ repeated pronouncements as to the exigency of their claims, Petitioners chose not to
utilize the discovery period, did not notice any depositions, did not serve any interrogatories, did not
disclose any experts, and only served untimely document demands with responses due after the
discovery cutoff date. In such circumstances, good cause cannot be shown. Zivkovic v. S. California
Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming denial of motion to modify scheduling
order where counsel did not seek to modify that order until four months after the court issued the
order).

As we stated during the call, Respondents intend to move forward with their summary judgment
motion pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order and Petitioners have not provided any good cause
rationale to continue the remaining deadlines, let alone reopen lapsed ones, especially since
Petitioners requested the deadlines the Court adopted.

Finally, we do not appreciate Petitioners’ veiled threat that if Respondents do not agree to continue
deadlines in Torres, Petitioners may serve “limitless” discovery in Wilson. Should Petitioners attempt
to misuse the discovery process in Wilson for their failure to utilize the discovery period in Torres, it
would violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and 26(g). Respondents also note that they proposed a case
schedule on February 12, 2021, to which Petitioners did not respond. Since then, given that
Petitioners’ motion for provisional class certification is under consideration by the Court,
Respondents will not agree to engage in discovery in Wilson until after the Court’s ruling on
Petitioners’ motion. The scope and length of discovery will largely depend on whether a provisional

Yang Decl., Ex. 8 - 55

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 65 of 66 Page ID
#:7138

class is certified, especially since all three named petitioners in Wilson were offered but declined the
coronavirus vaccine.

Regards,

Paul “Bart” Green

Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California
300 N. Los Angeles St., Suite 7516, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Office: 213-894-0805, Cell: 213-247-4334
Email: [email protected]

From: Oliver Rocos <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:51 PM
To: Yang, Jasmin (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Naeun Rim <[email protected]>; Beck,
Daniel (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Han, Chung (USACAC) <[email protected]>; Staub, Keith
(USACAC) <[email protected]>; Green, Paul (USACAC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Specter <[email protected]>; Sara Norman <[email protected]>; Patrick
Booth <[email protected]>; Jimmy Threatt <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Settlement Communication

Jasmin,

Great to talk to you and Bart earlier, thanks for taking the time.

As discussed, Petitioners propose coordinating the schedules in Lompoc and Terminal Island and
agreeing on a limited range of discovery. We think this in the best interests of both parties to ensure
these actions can proceed quickly and efficiently towards their conclusion and we hope that we can
reach an agreement. The proposed schedules are as follows:

Lompoc

All Discovery Closes Friday April 30

MSJ due Monday May 3
MSJ Opp. due Monday May 17
MSJ Reply due Monday May 24
MSJ hearing Tuesday June 15
Pre-Trial Hearing Tuesday July 13
Trial begins Monday August 2

Terminal Island

All discovery closes Friday May 28

MSJ due Friday May 28
MSJ Opp. due Monday June 14

Yang Decl., Ex. 8 - 56

Case 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC Document 190-1 Filed 03/21/21 Page 66 of 66 Page ID
#:7139

MSJ Reply due Monday June 21

MSJ Hearing Tuesday, July 13
Pre-Trial Hearing August 10

As to the scope of discovery, we propose to limit it as follows:

1) Up to six RFPs (a subset of those served in Lompoc), which would be the same in both
actions. In Lompoc, the parties would immediately meet and confer and, if necessary, file a
motion to compel. In Terminal Island, the RFPs would be served shortly;
2) An inspection from Venters in Lompoc only;
3) A 30b6 deposition with a maximum of six topics;
4) Respondents’ experts deposed on a single day each across both actions.

We look forward to hearing from you and would appreciate a response by COB tomorrow, March 17.

Best regards,

Ollie

Oliver Rocos
Associate
O: 310.201.2100 |E: [email protected]
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

Yang Decl., Ex. 8 - 57