Adams et al v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SHELTON ADAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CRAIG ALAN KOENIG, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 21-cv-08545-JST (AGT)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 145, 146, 179, 180
Presiding Judge Tigar referred this case to the undersigned for the creation of a dis-
covery plan prior to selections of bellwether plaintiffs. Dkt. 142.1 Judge Tigar ordered the
parties to file a jointly prepared discovery plan identifying precisely what discovery would
be required. Id. Since then, the parties have made two attempts at a discovery proposal, see
dkts. 145, 146, 179, & 180, and after hearing the matter, the undersigned now recommends
as follows.
Defendants propose to focus on D-Wing, which housed thirteen incarcerated persons
involved in Operation Akili (the subject of this lawsuit). Dkt. 179 at 2–3.2 Of those thirteen,
nine are plaintiffs and one is the putative class representative in a related case. Id. at 3. De-
fendants represent that this is a sufficiently large group from which six bellwether plaintiffs
might be selected, and there is likely an overlap of witnesses to help streamline discovery.
1 Selection of bellwether plaintiffs is to take place by February 13, 2026. Dkt. 126.
2 Page numbers correspond to the ECF numbers at the top of each page.
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 185 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Id. Defendants ask the Court to limit discovery to information aimed at selection of bell-
wether plaintiffs. Id. at 3–4.
Plaintiffs oppose limiting discovery to any particular wing and argue that “[d]iscov-
ery will narrow naturally once the bellwether decision is made.” Dkt. 180 at 4; see also dkt.
146 at 3 (“Plaintiffs cannot commit to limiting the litigation to a particular wing, or make
any commitment to anything, without first foundationally establishing who did what.”).
Plaintiffs’ position is untenable. And it does not assist in furthering Judge Tigar’s mandate
to “identify[ ] the precise discovery each party will take to enable that party to select its
proposed bellwether plaintiffs.” Dkt. 142.
In the absence of a workable and reasonable plan from Plaintiffs, and in light of
Defendants’ reasonable proposal, the undersigned recommends adopting Defendants’ pro-
posed plan to limit discovery prior to selections of bellwether plaintiffs to the D-Wing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2025
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:21-cv-08545-JST Document 185 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 2