1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00114910-3 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST
REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Gregg McLean Adam, Bar No. 203436 [email protected] Matthew Taylor, Bar No. 264551 [email protected] MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 828 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.266.1800 Facsimile: 415.266.1128 David A. Sanders, Bar No. 221393 [email protected] Daniel M. Lindsay, Bar No. 142895 [email protected] CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION 755 Riverpoint Drive, Suite 200 West Sacramento, CA 95605-1634 Telephone: 916.340.2959 Facsimile: 916.374.1824 Attorneys for Intervenor CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Defendants. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION,
Intervenor.
Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR STAY OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 AND OCTOBER 27, 2021 ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS Date: November 17, 2021 Time: 2 pm. Crtrm.: 6 – 2nd Floor The Hon. Jon S. Tigar
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 1 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
00114910-3 i Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
II. ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................2
A. The Union Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its Appeal .....................................2
1. The State Has Not Acted with Deliberate Indifference. .................................3
2. The Mandatory Vaccination Order Fails the Least Intrusive Means Test .................................................................................................................6
B. The Union and Its Members Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent a Stay ................8
C. The Issuance of a Stay Will Not Substantially Harm the Incarcerated Population, and a Stay Is in the Public Interest ..........................................................9
III. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................10
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 2 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00114910-3 1 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Court’s orders mandating the vaccination of all staff in California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) prisons are extraordinary. Never before has a court
ordered more than tens of thousands of people to submit to an invasive medical procedure to cure
an alleged constitutional deficiency in the prisons. The impact of the Court’s orders is imminent
and irreparable. CDCR staff including the members of the California Correctional Peace Officers’
Association (CCPOA or Union) will be forced either to set aside their right to refuse medical
treatment or face an uncertain future under threat of discipline, which will likely include weeks or
months without pay and potential loss of their jobs.
Since the Court’s orders, the Ninth Circuit has clarified how courts should evaluate
challenges to COVID-19 remedial measures in prisons, see Fraihat v. U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, No. 20-55634, --- F.4th ---, 2021 WL 4890884 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2021),
and now the Fifth Circuit has weighed in as well, see BST Holdings v. O.S.H.A., No. 21-60845,
ECF No. 00516083925, at 2 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2021). Neither result comports with the Court’s
orders.
Still intent on defending the immediate implementation of the mandatory vaccination
orders, however, the Receiver and Plaintiffs cobble together reasons why the Court should not
allow the Ninth Circuit to timely review this issue of first impression and grant the requested stay.
None convinces.
First, the Receiver and Plaintiffs overplay their contention that the Union delayed in
moving to stay the court’s order. They ignore the fact that the September 27, 2021 Order re:
Mandatory Vaccinations did not have an implementation deadline. Once it became clear that the
court would set such a deadline, the Union moved to stay. The Union filed its motion within two
hours after the Court set the deadline. This hardly constitutes a “substantial” period of delay that
undercuts the Union’s claim of irreparable harm as the Receiver alleges. ECF No. 3738
[Receiver’s Opposition to Defendants’ and CCPOA’s Motions to Stay] at fn. 3.
Second, the Receiver and Plaintiffs argue that the irreparable harm will not come to pass
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 3 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00114910-3 2 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
because Union members will ultimately decide to submit themselves to vaccination instead of
losing their jobs, and the harm to Union members who refuse vaccination is easily remedied. The
Receiver and Plaintiffs miss the mark. Union members’ rights are violated when they reluctantly
relinquish their right to refuse medical treatment. The Receiver and Plaintiffs’ argument that harm
to Union members who refuse vaccination is easily remedied is confusing at best, and disdainful at
worst.
Third, the Receiver and Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Fraihat as inapplicable pre-
vaccination case law, but no court bar this one has found such a bright line between cases
addressing COVID-19 remedial measures pre- and post-vaccination. The Receiver and Plaintiffs
offer no authority for disregarding cases assessing prison administrators’ past attempts to provide
for the health and safety of prisoners. There is none.
II.
ARGUMENT
The standard for granting a stay pending appeal is not in dispute. See ECF No. 3715-1
[Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Stay Order Re
Mandatory Vaccinations Pending Appeal] at 9; ECF No. 3722 [CCPOA’s Motion for Stay of
September 27, 2021 Order Re Mandatory Vaccinations] at 5-6; ECF No. 3738 at 8; and ECF No.
3739 [Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ and CCPOA’s Motions to Stay This Court’s
September 27, 2021 and October 27,2021 Orders] at 6. The Union has established a “substantial
case” or a “strong showing” for relief on the merits, as the Union’s members will be irreparably
injured absent a stay, and the balance of the equities and public interest favor granting a stay. See
ECF No. 3722 [Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Union’s Motion for Stay]
(Opening Brief) at 5-6.
A. The Union Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its Appeal
No party disputes that the Court only has authority to order the mandatory vaccination of
all CDCR staff if the Receiver and Plaintiffs meet their burden to show that (a) failing to issue
such an order violates the Eighth Amendment rights of prisoners and (b) the order is “is narrowly
drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the [Eighth Amendment violation], and is the
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 4 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00114910-3 3 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the [Eighth Amendment].” 18 USC
§ 3626(a). The Union has demonstrated that the Receiver and Plaintiffs can make no such
showing.
1. The State Has Not Acted with Deliberate Indifference.
In its Opening Brief, the Union directed the Court to the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Fraihat
that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not act “with deliberate indifference to
medical needs or in reckless disregard of health risks” where it undertook COVID-19 intervention
measures similar to those that the State implemented in this case. ECF 3722 at 6-10 (quoting
Fraihat, 2021 WL 4890884, at *20). The Union argued that Fraihat reveals at least five errors in
the Court’s Order re: Mandatory Vaccination, including that (a) the State’s reasonable measures to
combat COVID-19 preclude a finding of deliberate indifference, (b) the State has not acted
unreasonably simply because additional measures might be advisable, (c) the existence of a new
measure (i.e., a vaccine) does not mean that the measure must be mandatory for all staff,
especially when the State has made the measure widely available to staff and prisoners through its
voluntary vaccination program, (d) the evidence presented by the Receiver and Plaintiffs does not
justify the system-wide relief they seek, and (e) the Supreme Court’s command to consider
“current attitudes and conduct” does not support the Court’s emphasis on mandatory vaccination
of all staff relative to all other measures.
Since the Union filed its Opening Brief, courts have continued to evaluate the legal
propriety of vaccine mandates. On November 6, 2021, the Fifth Circuit stayed an Occupational
Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”) COVID-19 vaccination mandate. BST Holdings,
ECF No. 00516083925, at 2.
Faced with the overwhelming likelihood that the Ninth Circuit will side with the Union
and Defendants, the Receiver and Plaintiffs grasp at straws:
First, the Receiver and Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Fraihat as inapplicable to the
current stage of the pandemic in which vaccines are available, ECF No. 3738 at 14-15; ECF No.
3739 at 17, but as discussed in the Union’s Opening Brief, Fraihat does not mandate that the State
take any particular intervention measures in response to COVID-19. ECF No. 3722 at 9. The
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 5 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00114910-3 4 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Receiver also argues that the deliberate indifference standard clarified in Fraihat does not apply
with equal force here because the California prison system is in receivership. ECF No. 3738 at
14-15. The Receiver cites no authority to support the dubious proposition that constitutional
violations that occurred years earlier, with respect to unrelated issues, support a finding that a
prison administrator’s response to a once-in-a-century pandemic is deliberately indifferent.
Second, the Receiver and Plaintiffs argue that the State must implement the most effective
intervention measure, ECF No. 3738 at 5-6; ECF No. 3739 at 17, which they both incorrectly
assert is the mandatory vaccination of staff (sidestepping the mandatory vaccination of prisoners),
but Fraihat requires no such thing.
Third, the Receiver also argues that by implementing a mandatory vaccination policy for
some staff, the State has somehow admitted that its pre-vaccination COVID-19 intervention
measures were constitutionally inadequate. ECF 3738 at 14. But the Court already found those
measures constitutionally sufficient. See ECF No. 3291 [April 17, 2020 Order Denying Plaintiffs’
Emergency Motion Regarding Prevention and Management of COVID-19] at 14:3-4 (“In this
case, … the Court concludes without difficulty that Defendants’ response has been reasonable”);
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845 (where prison officials act reasonably, they do not violate
the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause). And the Receiver has the
deliberate indifference standard backwards. A prison administrator is deliberately indifferent
when it acts in “reckless disregard of known health risks,” Fraihat, 2021 WL 4890884, at *1, not
when it requires that some of its staff be vaccinated and provides vaccinations to other willing
staff and prisoners.
Fourth, the Receiver overlooks important factors that convinced the Court in Jones v. City
& County of San Francisco, 976 F. Supp. 896, 908 (N.D. Cal. 1997) that the city did not act
reasonably to ensure inmates’ safety. Though the city made “commendable improvements” to
address fire hazards, these paled in comparison to the extent of the remaining deficiencies in fire
safety protocol, which were rampant and were left unaddressed for a long period of time. See
Jones, supra, 976 F. Supp. at 908. Of the 24 serious deficiencies that were identified, the Court
listed only four that were addressed by the City. It also noted that at least 6 serious deficiencies
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 6 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00114910-3 5 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
remained, including the use of flammable mattresses “[among] the greatest fire hazards that exist
in correctional settings.” Id. Thus, the Court assessed the city’s cumulative actions in that case—
rather than its decision with respect to a single safety measure—to determine whether its actions
were reasonable. It should also not be lost on the Court that none of the safety measures not taken,
e.g., installing automatic sprinklers, installing fire-rated door assemblies, etc., see id., involved an
encroachment on the rights of the prison staff.
Fifth, the Receiver inaccurately describes the Ninth Circuit’s analysis in Wilk v. Neven,
956 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2020), and thereby disregards how it is distinguishable from the present
issue. The Receiver describes the analysis in Wilk as an assessment of “whether there was an
action it would be unreasonable [for defendants] not to take” (emphasis added), suggesting that
defendants’ cumulative response to the pandemic is nullified if it fails to take even one step to
enhance inmate safety. Yet, the Ninth Circuit did not discuss any positive steps that the Wilk
defendants took to protect the plaintiff from his aggressor; thus, there was no finding of liability
on the part of the defendants despite other measures they implemented to ensure inmate safety.
The same is true with respect to the Ninth Circuit’s review of other cases in the Wilk decision.
There was no indication that the defendants in those cases took some remedial measures but
neglected to take an additional step. The Receiver also ignores that the facts in Wilk involved
exclusively violence by one inmate against another and how the plaintiff’s evidence showed that
the prison staff “actively misled Wilk” by telling him that his aggressor remained segregated from
the population when he was not, which thereby reduced Wilk’s own ability to protect himself.
Wilk, supra, 956 F.3d at 1150. Similar to Jones, this case did not involve the consideration of any
measures that would require prison staff to make a sacrifice regarding their personal convictions,
bodily autonomy or their economic well-being.
Sixth, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 does little to support Receiver’s argument. As the
Receiver points out, the Farmer decision raises the concept of “reasonable safety,” yet provides
little by way of analysis to explain what the term means. The Supreme Court’s focus in the
opinion is primarily on the level of subjective intent and knowledge that is necessary to establish
liability and practically avoids discussing where the line should be drawn between reasonable and
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 7 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00114910-3 6 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
unreasonable level of safety. Therefore, like in the Wilk case, there is no assessment of the steps
that the prison did take to protect the plaintiff prisoners safety versus what it did not do. The
Supreme Court did make one thing clear, though. “[P]rison officials who actually knew of a
substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they responded
reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted.” (Emphasis added.) Farmer,
supra, 511 U.S. at 844.
2. The Mandatory Vaccination Order Fails the Least Intrusive Means Test
As the Union established in its Opening Brief, the Court erred in finding that the
mandatory vaccination of all staff was the least intrusive means of remedying an alleged Eighth
Amendment violation when mandatory prisoner vaccination is less intrusive and more efficient at
protecting prisoners from COVID-19. ECF 3722 at 10. The Union also argued that the State’s
voluntary staff vaccination program is becoming more successful each day. Id. citing ECF No.
3715-2 [Declaration of Diana Toche, DDS In Support of Defendants’ Motion to Stay] at ¶ 3
(number of staff who have received at least one dose of vaccine increased from about fifty-three
percent on August 6, 2021, to about sixty-three percent by October 14, 2021, and the vaccination
rates among custody staff have increased from about forty-one percent to fifty-one percent in the
same period.) And the staff vaccination rate has continued to increase since the Union filed its
Opening Brief. See ECF No. 3739-1 [Declaration of Laura Bixby in Support of Plaintiffs’
Opposition to Defendants’ and CCPOA’s Motions to Stay Vaccine Mandate Orders] at 10.
The Receiver and Plaintiffs’ arguments fail to address these points adequately.
First, the Receiver and Plaintiffs confusingly argue that the increase in staff vaccination
rates show that mandatory vaccination is necessary because the increase is due to the mandatory
vaccination of some staff. (ECF No. 3738 at 16; ECF No. 3739 at 19.) But the Receiver provides
no evidence that the increase is exclusively, or even primarily, among staff required to be
vaccinated. Furthermore, a comparison between the rates of increase in staff vaccinations before
and after the Department of Public Health’s August 19 vaccination order shows a slightly higher
rate before the order was issued. The average increase in vaccinations (at least one dose given)
among institutional staff, measured every month from January to July 2021, was 3.8%. (See ECF
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 8 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00114910-3 7 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
No. 3530 [Joint Case Management Conference Statement (CMC Statement) filed on January 13,
2021] at 2; ECF No. 3548 [CMC Statement filed on February 12, 2021] at 2; ECF No. 3566 [CMC
Statement filed on March 24, 2021] at 4; ECF No. 3579 [CMC Statement filed on April 27, 2021]
at 3; ECF No. 3592 [CMC Statement filed on May 25, 2021] at 3; ECF No. 3605 [CMC Statement
filed on June 25, 2021] at 2; ECF No. 3623 [CMC Statement filed on July 27, 2021] at 2.) Within
this period, some monthly increases were as high as 5% and 9%. Comparatively, the average
increase since the order, from mid-September to mid-October, is 3.6% with the highest increase
being 5% from September to October. (See Declaration of Gregg McLean Adam In Support of
Reply Brief at ¶¶ 2 - 4, Exhs. A - C.)
Second, the Receiver argues that the mandatory vaccination of prisoners would not address
the substantial risk posed by COVID-19 because of the possibility of breakthrough infections,
ECF No. 3738 at 17, but the existence of breakthrough infections cannot simultaneously
undermine the importance of prisoner vaccinations and support the need to vaccinate all staff.
Breakthrough infections will occur regardless of who is vaccinated. The Receiver ignores that
prisoners, the population the Eighth Amendment was meant to protect, are far more likely to be
infected with COVID-19 if they are unvaccinated than if they are vaccinated and suffer a
breakthrough infection.
Third, the Receiver unconvincingly argues that the mandatory vaccination of prisoners, as
compared to the mandatory vaccination of staff, would not be a less intrusive means to protect the
incarcerated population by twisting the words of Dr. James Watt, who previously declared that
“‘[t]he best way for patients in correctional settings to reduce their risk of severe illness … would
be to get vaccinated.’” ECF No. 3738 at 17 (quoting ECF No. 3661 [Declaration of James Watt,
MD, MPH] at 6 - 7) (emphasis in original). The Receiver makes the case that though inoculation
may be the best way for patients to protect themselves, it is not the best way for Defendants to
protect the patients—that would take mandatory vaccinations of both staff and patients. But this
ignores the point that Defendants do not have to implement the best level of protection; they need
only provide reasonable measures. Mandatory vaccinations of patients would be a reasonable
remedial measure. It would also be a less intrusive means than requiring staff to vaccinate given
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 9 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00114910-3 8 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
that the purpose of the remedial measures is to protect the patients themselves.
B. The Union and Its Members Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent a Stay
In its Opening Brief, the Union discussed the numerous irreparable harms that its members
would suffer if the Court’s orders were not stayed, including being forced to choose between
losing their employment and subjecting themselves to an invasive and unwanted medical
procedure, financial harm, social upheaval, long-lasting prison staff shortages, the loss of staff
benefits, increased staff workload, and serious security risks in prisons among others. The
Plaintiffs and the Receiver’s arguments in opposition fail to counter these points.
First, the Receiver implies that these harms are manufactured because the Union did not
argue irreparable harm to staff in response to the Order to Show Cause and did not move to stay
until almost a month after the Court’s initial Order re: Mandatory Vaccinations. ECF 3738 at 20.
The Receiver ignores that irreparable harm is not a prerequisite to the Court’s authority to act
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and that the Union moved to stay within hours of the
Court setting an implementation deadline for its order.
Second, the Receiver and Plaintiffs argue that the irreparable harm that Union members
will suffer is not cognizable because it is purely financial or can be remedied, and in any case,
vaccinations are beneficial. (ECF No. 3738 at 24-25; ECF No. 3739 at 13-14.). The Receiver and
Plaintiffs completely miss the point. Union members have a right to refuse medical treatment,
whether or not that medical treatment is ultimately beneficial to them. See, e.g., Cruzan v. Dir.,
Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 271 (1990). That right is violated when they are forced to
undergo unwanted treatment. And the harm caused by the violation of that right cannot be
reversed post-vaccination because it is the needle entering the arm that causes the irreparable
harm.
Union members who refuse to be vaccinated and lose their jobs are also harmed. Those
members will either resign or be subject to discipline. If they resign, they would likely lose their
right to mandatory reinstatement. Cal. Gov. Code § 19140. If they refuse to resign, they will be
subjected to discipline, as the Plaintiffs detail in their opposition brief. ECF No. 3739 at 8-10.
Disciplinary records affect employees’ ability to be promoted and to succeed in their careers. It
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 10 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00114910-3 9 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
can also lead to termination, which results in numerous hardships that the Union previously
detailed in its Opening Brief, ECF No. 3722 at 10-13, and a possible bar from future state
employment, Cal. Gov. Code § 19583.1. Even if Union members are successful in the
disciplinary proceedings and granted back pay, undergoing weeks or months without pay is not
something the average Union member can bear.
Third, Plaintiffs argue that irreparable harm is unlikely to occur because Union members
will choose to be vaccinated when faced with mandatory vaccination or the loss of their jobs and
that a stay is premature because unvaccinated Union members will not face progressive discipline
until after the mandatory vaccination deadline. ECF No. 3739 at 7-10. But, once again, Plaintiffs
ignore the hardships endured by Union members who reluctantly submit to a violation of their
right to refuse medical treatment, or endure a long period without pay, or at reduced pay, while
challenging the progressive discipline process, or suffer the loss of their jobs. These hardships
may not mean much to lawyers but for working families, they are simply not a viable option.
Fourth, Plaintiffs and the Receiver argue that staff shortages are unlikely because staff
will choose to be vaccinated once they face the decision of being vaccinated or losing their jobs.
(ECF No. 3738 at 21-23, 25.) Once again, this argument assumes away the irreparable harm to
Union members.
C. The Issuance of a Stay Will Not Substantially Harm the Incarcerated Population, and
a Stay Is in the Public Interest
In its Opening Brief, the Union showed how the State’s multiple measures to lower
prisoners’ risk of COVID-19 infection, including a voluntary vaccination program for prisoners
and staff, have resulted in a relatively low rate of COVID-19 in California prisons. Thus, any
added benefit from the mandatory vaccination of all staff is likely to be incremental and does not
outweigh the irreparable harm caused to the Union’s members. Once again, the Receiver and
Plaintiffs argue that mandatory staff vaccination is the best means for limiting the substantial risk
of COVID-19 in prisons (ECF No. 3738 at 27), and once again, the Receiver and Plaintiffs ignore
the harm caused to staff and effectiveness of mandatory prisoner vaccination.
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 11 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00114910-3 10 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
III.
CONCLUSION
The Union respectfully requests that the Court stay its September 27, 2021 Mandatory
Vaccination Order and October 27, 2021 Order Setting Deadline for Mandatory Vaccination
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) pending the Union’s appeal.
Dated: November 11, 2021 MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP
By
Gregg McLean Adam
Matthew Taylor
Attorneys for Intervenor
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE
OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743 Filed 11/11/21 Page 12 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00115052-1
1 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST
DEC. GREGG ADAM ISO REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Gregg McLean Adam, Bar No. 203436 [email protected] Matthew Taylor, Bar No. 264551 [email protected] MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 828 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.266.1800 Facsimile: 415.266.1128 David A. Sanders, Bar No. 221393 [email protected] Daniel M. Lindsay, Bar No. 142895 [email protected] CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION 755 Riverpoint Drive, Suite 200 West Sacramento, CA 95605-1634 Telephone: 916.340.2959 Facsimile: 916.374.1824 Attorneys for Intervenor CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Defendants. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION,
Intervenor.
Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST DECLARATION OF GREGG McLEAN ADAM IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR STAY OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 AND OCTOBER 27, 2021 ORDERS RE: MANDATORY VACCINATIONS Date: November 17, 2021 Time: 2 pm. Crtrm.: 6 – 2nd Floor The Hon. Jon S. Tigar
I, Gregg McLean Adam, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before this Court. I am a partner with
Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP, attorneys of record for Intervenor California Correctional Peace
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 1 of 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
00115052-1
2 Case No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST
DEC. GREGG ADAM ISO REPLY ISO CCPOA’S MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDERS
MESSING ADAM &
JASMINE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Officers’ Association (CCPOA). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if
called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. I make this declaration in
support of CCPOA’s Reply in Support of California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association’s
Motion for Stay of September 27, 2021 and October 27, 2021 Orders Re: Mandatory
Vaccinations.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an email dated
September 21, 2021 that I received from Miranda Taylor, Assistant to Director of Health Care
Services Joseph Bick, M.D., at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, subject
line “COVID Data Summary for 09-17-21 (External Stakeholders).”
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an email dated October
15, 2021 that I received from Miranda Taylor, Assistant to Director of Health Care Services
Joseph Bick, M.D., at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, subject line
“COVID Data Summary for 10-15-21 (External Stakeholders).”
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an email dated November
5, 2021 that I received from Miranda Taylor, Assistant to Director of Health Care Services Joseph
Bick, M.D., at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, subject line “COVID
Data Summary for 11-05-21 (External Stakeholders).”
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 11th day of November, 2021, at Mill Valley, California.
Gregg McLean Adam
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 2 of 19
Exhibit A
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 3 of 19
!
%764 " DHRUW# > PWHTKH. > PWHTKH%DHRUW0 JKJW%JH%N U[/
).59" DZ LXKH# CLVYLS ILW('# (& (' ),(& A>
*6" 1%?UWWPX- 1RPXUT8HWK^- 2HWWU\ # BUXJUL0 343B- 2LTY_# > LRPXXH0 343B- 2PJQ # 4W%
;UXLVO0 343B- 3RHWQ < LRXU !JQ LRXU0 A139693%54E "- 4HS UT> J3RHPT- 4H[PK CHTKLWX-
4H[PX# DHS P H0 343B- 4UTCVLJYLW- 5K C\ HTXUT- 5WTLXY 7 HR[HT- 6LWN Z XUT#
AHYWPJPH0 343B- 6UXX# DHS S ^0 343B- 7 WLN N 1KHS - 8LPTY_# =PXH0 343B- 9WHS 8HXHT-
;HS PL 4Z VWLL- ;UOTXUT# 7 HTTUT0 343B- < LRXU# 3RHWQ 0 343B- < PWQ RHTK# BPJOHWK0 343B-
< ^RL =L\ PX- =HZ WH2P]I^- =PXH5RRX- > HWYPT4UKK - > HYY =UVLX- > PJOHLR2PLT- ?LPRR#
;LTTPMLW0 343B- @XYRPTN # =PTKH- AHZ R> LRRU- BHTH1THIYH\ P- BLTYLWPH# CPS UTL0 343B-
BPYH=US PU- B^HT7 PRRL- B^HT# 1S HTKH0 343B- CHPJO# =HWH0 343B- CHS HTYOHG URMM- CHWH
?UWS HT- CJUMPLRK # 2W HTY- CLHT=UKOUR_- CUVOPL 8HWY- CYHMMUWK # 3HWWPL0 343B- CYL[L
6HS H- DHTN # COPWRL^0 343B- DOUS HX ?URHT- DUJOL# 4PHTH0 343B- DWHJL > HPUWPTU-
G LILW# ?PJOURHX0 343B
$-" 2LTH[PKL_# CZ _HTTL0 343B- DHRUW# > PWHTKH
); ,1.-9" 3@F94 4HYHCZ S S HW MUW& +$ '*$ (' !5]YLWTHRCYHQ LOURKLWX"
# 99+-/4 .598" 3@F94 FHJJPTL BLMZ XHRBHYL I^ > LTYHR8LHRYO =L[LRUM3HWL 1WS XYWUTN HTK 3RHWQ
(& ('& +'*%]RX]
E\`S4ROOT \Z *3) +1) ,+
* ' CB CG ? 4 F=B A H4 6 6 =A 4 F=B A 8 9 9 B DFE3
33&/*3 ]OWS[_ #32(2! $ VObS PSS[\TTS SR O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S5 OQQS]`O[QS OS W_ 13! OZ \[U `V\_S
\TTS SR(
11&/*2)33&/*3 #13! \T`V\_S \TTS SR&11! \T`\`OY; <; I]\]a YOW\[$ OQQS]`SR O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S(
GS QS[ \T; FM@<'[OgbS ]OWS[_ bOQQW[OSR41.! #,0! \T; FM@<'[OgbS ]OWS[_ OS a [bOQQW[OSR$
GS QS[ \T; FM@<' S_\YbSR ]OWS[_ bOQQW[OSR4/.!
/*&0*3 VObS VOR O; FM@< RWOU [\_W_(
+ ' EF4 F8 I =7 8 CB CG? 4 F=B A H4 6 6 =A 8 7 4 F4 3
G Z Q N] R Q 3 1 ( + 0 ( + ) + * 2 ( , ( + ) + * 2 ( * ) ( + ) + * 2 ( * 0 ( + ) + *
CN] UR X ] \ / . % & 6 Y _ UQ A Nb_ R [7 ,&/1* [7,&/1+ [7 ,&/02 [7 ,&/0.
FTTS SR4 ,&//1 #33(.! $ ,&/0* #33(/! $ ,&//3 #33(0! $ ,&//1 #33(1! $
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 ,&-02 ,&-02 ,&-02 ,&-1+
<SQYW[SR4 ,*, +3, +3+ +20
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 3-! 3,! 3-! 3-!
CN] UR X ] \ 6 Y _ UQ EP Y [ R "/ & 6 Y _ UQ A Nb_ R [7,2.- [7,&2/* [7 ,&2.1 [7,&2..
FTTS SR4 ,&2-+ #33(/! $ ,&2.* #33(0! $ ,&2-2 #33(0! $ ,&2-0 #33(1! $
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 ,&0/+ ,&0/3 ,&00+ ,&00-
<SQYW[SR4 +2* +2+ +11 +1-
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 3.! 3.! 3.! 3.!
CN] UR X ] \ 6 Y _ UQ EP Y [ R ", & 6 Y _ UQ A Nb_ R [73**+ [73&*,, [72&33- [7 2&321
FTTS SR4 23*, #32(3! $ 2&32, #33(/! $ 2&30/ #33(0! $ 230, #33(1! $
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 1&312 2&**, 1&33, 2&*+,
<SQYW[SR4 320 32* 31- 3/*
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 23! 23! 23! 23!
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 4 of 19
"
4 VV CN] UR X ] \ [733&01, [7 33&2*+ [733&/31 [733&/*3
FTTS SR432&/1-
#32(2! $
32&/0-
#32(1! $
32&/./
#32(3! $
32&-02
#32(2! $
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 11&*3+ 11&.// 11&-2* 11&/*2
<SQYW[SR4 ,+&.2, ,+&+*2 ,+&*1. ,*&20*
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 12! 13! 13! 13!
* + 1
* + 1 % Z ] \
`VO[
*3) +* ) ,+
, ' H4 6 6 =A 8 4 6 6 8 CF4 A 6 8 D4 F8 5 K @ < ? B 6 4 A 7 6 ? 4 D> ( 4 D@ EFDB A ; EF4 FGE
E]N] R ` UQ R G@G D ? ; 9 =FGD ? J<J
FbS OYY<<G <GG
4 P P R Z ]NX P R
"0 / " 0 1 " 1 + " 1 * " 1 1 " 2 ) "
L ]ROSR *3) +1) ,+
- ' C4 F=8 A FE A B FB 9 9 8 D8 7 H4 6 6 =A 8 #O a =X \ ] U] ^ ] UY X $3
! C] \ A Y ] B SSR [ R Q HNP P UX R
4 X Q 6 ^ [ [ R X ] Va UX =X \ ] U] ^ ] UY X
4 \ Y S ) 2 ( * 0 ( + *
@[_`
; FM@< IW_X
JQ\ S
$#
; FM@<
IW_X JQ\ S
-'/
; FM@<
IW_X JQ\ S
6 -
K\`OY
G _
8JG + +
; 8; *
; 8C *
; ; ; *
; ; @ *
; ; N >% +3 +3
; =E *
; ? ; > *
; @D - -
; @N + +
; D ; *
; D > + +
; FI *
; I; + +
; K> *
; MJG *
<M@ *
>JG + +
? <JG 2 2
@JG * % %
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 5 of 19
#
B MJG *
C8; + +
D ; JG , ,
EB JG% , -, -.
G9JG + +
GMJG *
IA< *
J8; * % %
J8K> - -
J; ; 2 2
JFC + +
JH + +
JMJG + +
MJG *
N JG% .// .//
% ISQS]`W\[QS[S _ . - +
% % Kc \ ]OWS[_ OYYS U WQ`\ bOQQW[S( #@JG" J8; $
K\`OY ' 8YYS U d ' I; _ 7
/., , /*0 -.
. ' =A EF=FGF=B A 4 ? 8 @ C? B K8 8 H4 6 6 =A 4 F=B A 8 9 9 B DFE3
-+&0., W[_`Wa `W\[OY_`OTTVObS PSS[bOQQW[OSR c WV O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S
-+&0., ) //&013 7 /1! \TW[_`Wa `W\[OY_`OTTVObS PSS[ORZ W[W_`S SR O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S
8 `\`OY\T+3&+,, W[_`Wa `W\[OY_`OTTVObS VOR O; FM@< RWOU [\_W_
/ ' EF4 F8 I =7 8 EF4 9 9 H4 6 6 =A 8 7 4 F4 3
G Z Q N] R Q 3 1 ( + 0 ( + ) + * 2 ( , ( + ) + * 2 ( * ) ( + ) + * 2 ( * 0 ( + ) + *
E]NSS HNP P UX R 7 N]N3 [7 0/&3,+ [70/&30* [7 0/&32/ [700&+33
K\`OYJ OTTISQSWbSR +_` <\_S4 -1&*03 #/0! $ -1&/,, #/1! $ -2&*2- #/2! $ -2&33. #/3! $
=X \ ] U] ^ ] UY X NV E]NSS 7 N]N3 [7//&/2. [7 //&0,1 [7 //&0/3 [7//&013
@[_` J OTTISQSWbSR +_` <\_S4 ,3&3., #/.! $ -*&-0+ #//! $ -*&231 #/0! $ -+&0., #/1! $
0 ' C4 F=8 A F, D7 7 B E8 5 K =A EF=FGF=B A
=X \ ] U] ^ ] UY X
!
=W W ^ X Y P Y W Z [ Y W U\ R Q
Z N] UR X ] \
FY ]NV CN] UR X ] \
6 ^ [ [ R X ] Va 7 ^ R
7 Y \ R ,
B SSR [ R Q
HNP P UX N] R Q
` U] T 7 Y \ R
,
7 Y \ R ,
DR S^ \ R Q
8JG 2 2 2 1 +
; 8; 0 0 0 . ,
; 8C 3 3 3 2 +
; ; ; + + + * +
; ; @ +- +- +- 3 .
; ; N > 12 10 1/ 00 3
; =E +2 +2 +1 +- .
; ? ; > -*- -*, ,32 ,2- +/
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 6 of 19
$
; @D -*/ -*/ -*. ,20 +2
; @N 01 01 0. // 3
; D ; 3* 3* 2/ 2* /
; D > ,-3 ,-1 ,-. ,++ ,-
; FI -1 -1 -0 -, .
; I; ,+ ,+ ,+ +3 ,
; K> 3/ 3- 3+ 20 /
; MJG -0 -0 -/ -+ .
<M@ * * * * *
>JG 01 00 00 /1 3
? <JG +3 +2 +2 +. .
@JG ,* ,* ,* +2 ,
B MJG ,2 ,2 ,2 ,. .
C8; +0+ +/2 +/1 +-3 +2
D ; JG .1, .03 .00 ..3 +1
EB JG ,* +1 +1 +- .
G9JG ,+ ,+ ,+ +3 ,
GMJG , , + + *
IA< -,2 -,. -+2 ,2* -2
J8; 21 20 2/ 1, +-
J8K> /* /* /* .2 ,
J; ; +. +. +. +. *
JFC ,*, +31 +3/ +1* ,/
JH ,/* ,.1 ,.. ,,2 +0
JMJG 12 11 11 02 3
MJG 3+ 3+ 3* 20 .
N JG ,- ,* +2 +, 0
FY ]NV\ 3 , &+ . 2 , &+ + - , &* 1 + + &2 ) + + 1 )
L ]ROSR
*3) +1) ,+
D WO[ROKOdY\^
# 22,23( . 3 3/ % ,1* )3/ 1 &/ 2* 0 + $ ,)- ! ' "% "
; OYWT\ [WO; \^ SQ W\[OY? SOYV ; OS JS bWQS_
; SYY4#3+0$/+-'+3-2 e <S_X 4#3+0$03+'3,/,
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email asspam.
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 7 of 19
Exhibit B
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 8 of 19
!
%764 " CG]QTV# = OVGSJG- = OVGSJG%CG]QTV/ IJIV%IG%M TZ.
).59" 5VOJG]# ?IXTHKV'*# (& (' )+'& @=
*6" 0%>TVVOW, 0QOWTS7GVJ], 1GVVT[ # ATWITK/ 232A, 1KSX # = KQOWWG/ 232A, 1OIP # 3V%
9TWKUN/ 232A, 2QGVP ; KQWT !IP KQWT/ @028582%43D ", 3GR TS= I2QGOS, 3GZOJ BGSJKVW,
3GZOW# CGR O]G/ 232A, 3TSBUKIXKV, 4J B[ GSWTS, 4VSKWX 6 GQZGS, 5KVM Y WTS#
@GXVOIOG/ 232A, 5TWW# CGR R ]/ 232A, 6 VKM M 0JGR , 7KOSX # <OWG/ 232A, 8VGR 7GWGS,
9GR OK 3Y UVKK, 9TNSWTS# 6 GSSTS/ 232A, ; KQWT# 2QGVP / 232A, ; OVP QGSJ# AOINGVJ/ 232A,
; ]QK <K[ OW, <GY VG1O\H], <OWG4QQW, = GVXOS3TJJ , = GXX <TUKW, = OINGKQ1OKS, >KOQQ#
9KSSOLKV/ 232A, ?WXQOSM # <OSJG, @GY Q= KQQT, AGSG0SGHXG[ O, AKSXKVOG# BOR TSK/ 232A,
AOXG<TR OT, A]GS6 OQQK, A]GS# 0R GSJG/ 232A, BGOIN# <GVG/ 232A, BGR GSXNGF TQLL, BGVG
>TVR GS, BITLOKQJ # 1V]GSX, BKGS<TJNTQ , BTUNOK 7GVX, BXGLLTVJ # 2GVVOK/ 232A, BXKZK
5GR G, CGSM # BNOVQK]/ 232A, CNTR GW >TQGS, CTINK# 3OGSG/ 232A, CVGIK = GOTVOST,
F KHKV# >OINTQGW/ 232A
$-" CG]QTV# = OVGSJG, 1KSGZOJK^# BY ^GSSK/ 232A
); ,1.-9" 2?E83 3GXGBY R R GV] LTV'& $ '*$ (' !4\XKVSGQBXGP KNTQJKVW"
# 99+-/4 .598" 2?E83 EGIIOSK AKLY WGQAGXK H] = KSXGQ7KGQXN <KZKQTL2GVK 0VR WXVTSM GSJ 2QGVP
(& (''& '*%\QW\
* ' CB CG ? 4 F=B A H4 6 6 =A 4 F=B A 8 9 9 B DFE3
32&*+* ]OWS[_ #32(3" $ VObS PSS[\TTS SR O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S5 OQQS]`O[QS OS W_ 2*" OZ \[U `V\_S
\TTS SR(
12&-//)33&*// #13" \T`V\_S \TTS SR&11" \T`\`OY; <; I]\]a YOW\[$ OQQS]`SR O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S(
GS QS[ \T; FM@<'[OhbS ]OWS[_ bOQQW[OSR41/" #,/" \T; FM@<'[OhbS ]OWS[_ OS a [bOQQW[OSR$
GS QS[ \T; FM@<' S_\YbSR ]OWS[_ bOQQW[OSR40,"
/+&*+* VObS VOR O; FM@< RWOU [\_W_(
+ ' EF4 F8 I =7 8 CB CG? 4 F=B A H4 6 6 =A 8 7 4 F4 3
G Y Q N \ R Q 3 2 ( + - ( + ) + * * ) ( * ( + ) + * * ) ( 1 ( + ) + * * ) ( * . ( + ) + *
E\ N SS HN P P UW R 7 N \ N 3 [700&,3* [7 00&-*, [7 00&-** [7 00&,23
K\`OYJ OTTISQSWbSR +_` <\_S4 -3&300 #0*" $ .*&200 #0," $ .+&/+0 #0," $ .,&,03 #0." $
=W [ \ U\ ] \ UX W N V E\ N SS 7 N \ N 3 [7//&1/3 [7 //&111 [7 //&1/2 [7//&1/.
@[_` J OTTISQSWbSR +_` <\_S4 -,&/.+ #/2" $ --&,/. #0*" $ --&233 #0+" $ -.&/21 #0," $
CN \ UR W \ [ / . % & 6 X ^ UQ A N a^ R [7 ,&//2 [7,&//2 [7 ,&//0 [7,&/0/
FTTS SR4 ,&//* #33(1" $ ,&//* #33(1" $ ,&/.3 #33(1" $ ,&//, #33(/" $
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 ,&-1+ ,&-1+ ,&-1+ ,&-11
<SQYW[SR4 +13 +13 +12 +1/
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 3-" 3-" 3-" 3-"
CN \ UR W \ [ 6 X ^ UQ EP X Z R "/ & 6 X ^ UQ A N a^ R [7 ,&12- [7 ,&12- [7 ,&12/ [7,&122
FTTS SR4 ,&110 #33(1" $ ,&110 #33(1" $ ,&112 #33(1" $ ,&12* #33(1" $
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 ,&0+2 ,&0+2 ,&0,+ ,&0,3
<SQYW[SR4 +/2 +/2 +/1 +/+
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 3." 3." 3." 3/"
CN \ UR W \ [ 6 X ^ UQ EP X Z R ", & 6 X ^ UQ A N a^ R [7 2&1+0 [7 2&1+0 [7 2&1/- [72&12,
FTTS SR4 2&0-1 #33(*" $ 2&0-1 #33(*" $ 2&012 #33(+" $ 2&1/- #33(0" $
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 9 of 19
"
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 1&2*3 1&2*3 1&2-. 1&3+-
<SQYW[SR4 22, 22, 2.. 2.*
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 23" 23" 3*" 3*"
4 VV CN \ UR W \ [ [733&-0- [7 33&.+3 [7 33&*2, [733&*//
FTTS SR432&-1-
#33(*" $
32&-,-
#32(3" $
32&+..
#33(+" $
32&*+*
#32(3" $
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 11&030 11&13+ 11&31, 12&-//
<SQYW[SR4 ,*&011 ,*&/-, ,*&+1, +3&0//
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 13" 13" 13" 2*"
+ 1 , . / -
. / - % Y \ [
`VO[
+* ) *2) ,+
, ' H4 6 6 =A 8 4 6 6 8 CF4 A 6 8 D4 F8 5 K @ < ? B 6 4 A 7 6 ? 4 D> ( 4 D@ EFDB A ; EF4 FGE
E\ N \ R _ UQ R G@G D ? ; 9 =FGD ? J<J
FbS OYY<<G <GG
4 P P R Y \ N W P R
"0 1 " 0 . " 1 + " 1 + " 1 1 " 2 * "
L ]ROSR +* ) +/) ,+
- ' C4 F=8 A FE A B FB 9 9 8 D8 7 H4 6 6 =A 8 #O ` =W [ \ U\ ] \ UX W $3
! C\ [ A X \ B SSR Z R Q HN P P UW R
4 W Q 6 ] Z Z R W \ V` UW =W [ \ U\ ] \ UX W
4 [ X S * ) ( * . ( + *
@[_`
; FM@< IW_X
JQ\ S
$#
; FM@<
IW_X JQ\ S
-'/
; FM@<
IW_X JQ\ S
6 -
K\`OY
G _
8JG - -
; 8; *
; 8C *
; ; ; *
; ; @ + +
; ; N >% .+ .+
; =E + +
; ? ; > *
; @D , ,
; @N , ,
; D ; *
; D > + +
; FI , ,
; I; . .
; K> *
; MJG *
<M@ *
>JG *
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 10 of 19
#
? <JG 3 3
@JG + +
B MJG *
C8; + +
D ; JG + + ,
EB JG% - /+ /.
G9JG *
GMJG + +
IA< *
J8; + +
J8K> / /
J; ; 0 0
JFC *
JH + +
JMJG , ,
MJG *
N JG% +. .*0 .,*
% ISQS]`W\[QS[S _ . / )
K\`OY ' 8YYS U d ' I; _ 7
/0* , .32 0*
. ' =A EF=FGF=B A 4 ? 8 @ C? B K8 8 H4 6 6 =A 4 F=B A 8 9 9 B DFE3
-.&/21 W[_`Wa `W\[OY_`OTTVObS PSS[bOQQW[OSR c WV O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S
-.&/21 ) //&1/. 7 0," \TW[_`Wa `W\[OY_`OTTVObS PSS[ORZ W[W_`S SR O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S
8 `\`OY\T+3&0/+ W[_`Wa `W\[OY_`OTTVObS VOR O; FM@< RWOU [\_W_
/ ' EF4 F8 I =7 8 EF4 9 9 H4 6 6 =A 8 7 4 F4 3
G Y Q N \ R Q 3 2 ( + - ( + ) + * * ) ( * ( + ) + * * ) ( 1 ( + ) + * * ) ( * . ( + ) + *
E\ N SS HN P P UW R 7 N \ N 3 [700&,3* [7 00&-*, [7 00&-** [7 00&,23
K\`OYJ OTTISQSWbSR +_` <\_S4 -3&300 #0*" $ .*&200 #0," $ .+&/+0 #0," $ .,&,03 #0." $
=W [ \ U\ ] \ UX W N V E\ N SS 7 N \ N 3 [7//&1/3 [7 //&111 [7 //&1/2 [7//&1/.
@[_` J OTTISQSWbSR +_` <\_S4 -,&/.+ #/2" $ --&,/. #0*" $ --&233 #0+" $ -.&/21 #0," $
0 ' , D7 7 B E8 C4 F=8 A F7 4 F4
@[_`
Wa`W
\[
K\`OYGOWS[_
ISQ\Z Z S[RSR `\
ISQSWbS -Z Q 7 X [ R
K\`OYGOWS[_
; a ^ S[Yd=YWU WPYS
#<a S <OS T\^-Z Q
7 X [ R DR N P T R Q $
FT`VS_S&! c V\
VObS PSS[\TTS SR
- R R\_S
FT`V\_S \TTS SR&!
c V\ OQQS]`SR - R
R\_S
EI * - &2 0 ) * , &1 0 1 . &. - ) , 2 '2 " - &2 2 / 2 ) '+ "
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 11 of 19
$
@[_`Wa `W\[
K\`OYGOWS[_
ISQ\Z Z S[RSR `\
ISQSWbS -Z Q 7 X [ R
K\`OYGOWS[_
; a ^ S[Yd=YWU WPYS
#<a S <OS T\^-Z Q
7 X [ R DR N P T R Q $
<\_S - FTTS SRMOQQW[OSR c WV
<\_S -
8JG 00 ,/ / /
; 8; .1 +0 ++ 1
; 8C ./ -, -* ,/
; ; ; +/ 1 + *
; ; @ /+ .0 +/ ++
; ; N > +-2 +** 3/ 2*
; =E // ., -. ,3
; ? ; > +1+0 +003 0++ /20
; @D .++ -12 --0 -*3
; @N 33 2- 1. 0,
; D ; +++2 ++* * 2- 11
; D > -2+ -0+ ,/, ,,1
; FI /+- .21 -, ,2
; I; +., .1 ./ -0
; K> ,+/1 ,+* * +,3 ++/
; MJG 2, 0* ., -2
<M@ * * * *
>JG +,0 ++- ++. 3/
? <JG // .2 .- -0
@JG /+ ,1 +. +,
B MJG 20 2* 03 /2
C8; ,/- ,-2 ,*3 +12
D ; JG ,,-1 ,,*1 ++-+ ++*2
EB JG +.+ /0 .. -1
G9JG .+ -2 ,, +3
GMJG 03 -- + +
IA< +31, +3-- +**, 2..
J8; 3*0 221 2/ 1-
J8K> 0.1 0-1 +1, +/2
J; ; +** 01 ++ ++
JFC ,/, ,.0 ,+0 +2.
JH -1- -+3 ,/+ ,,2
JMJG +3. +20 +2- +//
MJG +02 +/2 +/2 +.3
N JG ,0- /, ,* +/
EI * - 2 0 ) * , 1 0 1 . . - ) - 2 2 /
K\`OYGOWS[_ ISQ\Z Z S[RSR `\ ISQSWbS O- R <\_S 7 @Z Z a [\Q\Z ] \Z W_SR ]OWS[_ c V\ SQSWbSR O[Z IE8 bOQQW[S
#GTWeS^\^D \RS [O$ FIO[d]OWS[ V\a _SR OO[W[_`Wa `W\[c V\ SQSWbSR P\`V R\_S_ \TGTWeS^bOQQW[S( KVW_ [a Z PS^
R\S_ [\` Q\[_WRS^Ra S ROS T\^- R R\_S(
K\`OYGOWS[_ ; a ^ S[Yd=YWU WPYS 7 > \Z `VS K\`OYGOWS[ ISQ\Z Z S[RSR `\ ISQSWbS O- R <\_S&`V\_S c V\_S - R R\_S
Ra S ROS VO_ PSS[ SOQVSR #W(S( Z \ S `VO[,2 ROd_ T\^WZ Z a [\Q\Z ] \Z W_SR ]OWS[_ FIZ \ S `VO[0 Z \[V_ T\^[\['
WZ Z a [\Q\Z ] \Z W_SR ]OWS[_ `VO SQSWbSR , R\_S_ \TGTWeS^bOQQW[S(
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 12 of 19
%
D WO[ROKOdY\^
# 22,23( . 3 3/ % ,1* )3/ 1 &/ 2* 0 + $ ,)- ! ' "% "
; OYWT\ [WO; \^ SQ W\[OY? SOYV ; OS JS bWQS_
; SYY4#3+0$/+-'+3-2 f <S_X 4#3+0$03+'3,/,
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email asspam.
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 13 of 19
Exhibit C
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 14 of 19
!
%764 " DHRUW# > PWHTKH. > PWHTKH%DHRUW0 JKJW%JH%N U[/
).59" 6WPKH# ?U[LS ILW)# (& (' +,)* A>
*6" 1%?UWWPX- 1RPXUT8HWK^- 2HWWU\ # BUXJUL0 343B- 2LTY_# > LRPXXH0 343B- 2PJQ # 4W%
;UXLVO0 343B- 3RHWQ < LRXU !JQ LRXU0 A139693%54E "- 4HS UT> J3RHPT- 4H[PK CHTKLWX-
4H[PX# DHS P H0 343B- 4UTCVLJYLW- 5K C\ HTXUT- 5WTLXY 7 HR[HT- 6LWN Z XUT#
AHYWPJPH0 343B- 6UXX# DHS S ^0 343B- 7 WLN N 1KHS - 8LPTY_# =PXH0 343B- 9WHS 8HXHT-
;HS PL 4Z VWLL- ;UOTXUT# 7 HTTUT0 343B- < LRXU# 3RHWQ 0 343B- < PWQ RHTK# BPJOHWK0 343B-
< ^RL =L\ PX- =HZ WH2P]I^- =PXH5RRX- > HWYPT4UKK - > HYY =UVLX- > PJOHLR2PLT- ?LPRR#
;LTTPMLW0 343B- @XYRPTN # =PTKH- AHZ R> LRRU- BHTH1THIYH\ P- BLTYLWPH# CPS UTL0 343B-
BPYH=US PU- B^HT7 PRRL- B^HT# 1S HTKH0 343B- CHPJO# =HWH0 343B- CHS HTYOHG URMM- CHWH
?UWS HT- CJUMPLRK # 2W HTY- CLHT=UKOUR_- CUVOPL 8HWY- CYHMMUWK # 3HWWPL0 343B- CYL[L
6HS H- DHTN # COPWRL^0 343B- DOUS HX ?URHT- DUJOL# 4PHTH0 343B- DWHJL > HPUWPTU-
G LILW# ?PJOURHX0 343B
$-" 2LTH[PKL_# CZ _HTTL0 343B- DHRUW# > PWHTKH
); ,1.-9" 3@F94 4HYHCZ S S HW MUW''$ & )$ (' !5]YLWTHRCYHQ LOURKLWX"
# 99+-/4 .598" 3@F94 FHJJPTL BLMZ XHRBHYL I^ > LTYHR8LHRYO =L[LRUM3HWL 1WS XYWUTN HTK 3RHWQ
(& ('''& )%]RX]
* ' CB CG ? 4 F=B A H4 6 6 =A 4 F=B A 8 9 9 B DFE3
32&0*2 ]OWS[_ #32(2" $ VObS PSS[\TTS SR O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S5 OQQS]`O[QS OS W_ 2+" OZ \[U `V\_S
\TTS SR(
13&1,.)32&0*2 #2+" \T`V\_S \TTS SR&13" \T`\`OY; <; I]\]a YOW\[$ OQQS]`SR O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S(
GS QS[ \T; FM@<'[OgbS ]OWS[_ bOQQW[OSR410" #,." \T; FM@<'[OgbS ]OWS[_ OS a [bOQQW[OSR$
GS QS[ \T; FM@<' S_\YbSR ]OWS[_ bOQQW[OSR40*"
/+&-/0 VObS VOR O; FM@< RWOU [\_W_(
+ ' EF4 F8 I =7 8 CB CG? 4 F=B A H4 6 6 =A 8 7 4 F4 3
G X Q N [ R Q 3 * ) ( * . ( + ) + * * ) ( + + ( + ) + * * ) ( + 2 ( + ) + * * * ( . ( + ) + *
CN [ TR V [ Z / . % & 6 W ] TQ A N `] R [7,&/0/ [7 ,&/2, [7,&/22 [7 ,&/2-
FTTS SR4 ,&//, #33(/" $ ,&/03 #33(/" $ ,&/10 #33(/" $ ,&/1/ #33(0" $
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 ,&-11 ,&-3, ,&.*- ,&.*0
<SQYW[SR4 +1/ +11 +1- +03
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 3-" 3-" 3-" 3-"
CN [ TR V [ Z 6 W ] TQ EP W Y R "/ & 6 W ] TQ A N `] R [7,&122 [7 ,&2*0 [7,&2*2 [7 ,&2,,
FTTS SR4 ,&12* #33(1" $ ,&131 #33(1" $ ,&133 #33(1" $ ,&2+0 #33(1" $
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 ,&0,3 ,&0., ,&0/- ,&01-
<SQYW[SR4 +/+ +// +.0 +.-
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 3/" 3." 3." 3/"
CN [ TR V [ Z 6 W ] TQ EP W Y R ", & 6 W ] TQ A N `] R [72&12, [7 2&2,- [7 2&20- [7 2&200
FTTS SR4 2&1/- #33(0" $ 2&13- #33(0" $ 2&2+3 #33(/" $ 2&12, #33(+" $
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 1&3+- 1&3// 1&330 2&*./
<SQYW[SR4 2.* 2-2 2,- 2*.
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 3*" 3*" 3*" 3+"
4 UU CN [ TR V [ Z [733&*// [7 33&-.0 [7 33&0/2 [7 33&1-0
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 15 of 19
"
FTTS SR432&*+*
#32(3" $
32&,/1
#32(3" $
32&.-0
#32(1" $
32&0*2
#32(2" $
8QQS]`SR #O YSO_` + R\_S$4 12&-// 12&122 13&-.- 13&1,.
<SQYW[SR4 +3&0// +3&.03 +3&*3- +2&22.
8QQS]`O[QS IOS4 2*" 2*" 2+" 2+"
2 , /
2 , / % X [ Z
`VO[
+* ) ,3),+
, ' H4 6 6 =A 8 4 6 6 8 CF4 A 6 8 D4 F8 5 K @ < ? B 6 4 A 7 6 ? 4 D> ( 4 D@ EFDB A ; EF4 FGE
E[ N [ R ^ TQ R G@G D ? ; 9 =FGD ? J<J
FbS OYY<<G <GG
4 P P R X [ N V P R " 0 1 " 0 . " 1 , " 1 + " 1 2 " 2 * "
L ]ROSR ++) /) ,+
- ' C4 F=8 A FE A B FB 9 9 8 D8 7 H4 6 6 =A 8 #O _ =V Z [ T[ \ [ TW V $3
! C[ Z A W [ B SSR Y R Q HN P P TV R
4 V Q 6 \ Y Y R V [ U_ TV =V Z [ T[ \ [ TW V
4 Z W S * * ( ) . ( + ) + *
@[_`
; FM@< IW_X
JQ\ S
$#
; FM@<
IW_X JQ\ S
-'/
; FM@<
IW_X JQ\ S
6 -
K\`OY
G _
8JG + +
; 8; + +
; 8C *
; ; ; *
; ; @ *
; ; N >% +/ +/
; =E + +
; ? ; > + + ,
; @D + +
; @N + +
; D ; / /
; D > + +
; FI , ,
; I; *
; K> + . /
; MJG + +
<M@ *
>JG *
? <JG 3 3
@JG + +
B MJG + +
C8; *
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 16 of 19
#
D ; JG + +
EB JG% + +-3 +.*
G9JG + +
GMJG + +
IA< , ,
J8; *
J8K> + . /
J; ; - -
JFC + +
JH + +
JMJG + +
MJG *
N JG% . +0 /.- /0-
% ISQS]`W\[QS[S _ 0 / /
K\`OY ' 8YYS U d ' I; _ 7
100 , 031 01
. ' =A EF=FGF=B A 4 ? 8 @ C? B K8 8 H4 6 6 =A 4 F=B A 8 9 9 B DFE3
-0&+.0 W[_`Wa `W\[OY_`OTTVObS PSS[bOQQW[OSR c WV O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S
-0&+.0 ) //&22- 7 0/" \TW[_`Wa `W\[OY_`OTTVObS PSS[ORZ W[W_`S SR O YSO_` \[S R\_S \TbOQQW[S
8 `\`OY\T,*&+.3 W[_`Wa `W\[OY_`OTTVObS VOR O; FM@< RWOU [\_W_
/ ' EF4 F8 I =7 8 EF4 9 9 H4 6 6 =A 8 7 4 F4 3
G X Q N [ R Q 3 * ) ( * . ( + ) + * * ) ( + + ( + ) + * * ) ( + 2 ( + ) + * * * ( . ( + ) + *
E[ N SS HN P P TV R 7 N [ N 3 [7 00&,23 [700&-,. [700&-10 [7 00&.1.
K\`OYJ OTTISQSWbSR +_` <\_S4 .,&,03 #0." $ .-&*2+ #0/" $ .-&0** #00" $ .-&33, #00" $
=V Z [ T[ \ [ TW V N U E[ N SS 7 N [ N 3 [7//&1/. [7 //&03* [7 //&3.+ [7 //&22-
@[_ ( J OTTISQSWbSR +_` <\_S4 -.&/21 #0," $ -/&,-2 #0-" $ -/&2,. #0." $ -0&+.0 #0/" $
0 ' , D7 7 B E8 C4 F=8 A F7 4 F4
@[_`
Wa`W
\[
K\`OYGOWS[_
ISQ\Z Z S[RSR `\
ISQSWbS -Y Q 7 W Z R
K\`OYGOWS[_
<\_S - <a S O_ \T
++) /) ,+
FT`VS_S&! c V\ VObS
PSS[\TTS SR - R R\_S
FT`V\_S \TTS SR&! c V\
OQQS]`SR - R R\_S
EI / / &) - 2 . . &/ * ) * * &2 . 0 + * '. " * ) &- + . 1 0 '+ "
@[_`Wa `W\[
K\`OYGOWS[_
ISQ\Z Z S[RSR `\
ISQSWbS -Y Q 7 W Z R
<\_S - <a S O_ \T
++) /) ,+<\_S - FTTS SR
MOQQW[OSR c WV
<\_S -
8JG ,2.- ,2*1 ./ -0
; 8; +,,3 +,*. -, ,/
; 8C +2.2 +2*1 .1 .+
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 17 of 19
$
; ; ; ++., +*20 +*- /0
; ; @ +22, +2,/ 0. /1
; ; N > +.// +,.+ ,-3 ,+-
; =E ,*.0 +3,1 +/* ++2
; ? ; > +3,/ +-+1 0+1 0*2
; @D ,*.1 +02+ -2* -00
; @N 023 0+2 1/ 1+
; D ; ,**0 +23+ ++3 ++/
; D > +/1- ++23 .+0 -2.
; FI ,.22 ,*10 .00 .+,
; I; +2,0 +1,3 ++1 31
; K> -1+0 ,3,1 2/* 123
; MJG +231 +2.* 0* /1
<M@ . . * *
>JG +2., +.,1 /-- .+,
? <JG +3-+ +220 .2 ./
@JG +.-1 +.+1 ,, ,*
B MJG ,*0. +321 21 11
C8; +2+- +.+1 /*1 -3/
D ; JG -+/* +,// +3/3 +23/
EB JG +-03 +,1, ++2 3-
G9JG +-+3 +,2- -1 -0
GMJG +,,0 ++3/ -, -+
IA< ,//, 22* ,+*3 +01+
J8; +,,1 10, 1.3 .0,
J8K> -/13 -*31 /,0 .2,
J; ; ,**0 +32+ ,/ ,/
JFC ,*0, +2.+ ,-3 ,,+
JH ,.33 +22- 0-* 0+0
JMJG +1*0 +.02 ,1+ ,-2
MJG ,./+ ,,03 +3* +2,
N JG +,** ++,+ 3/ 13
EI / / &) - 2 . . &/ * ) * * &2 . 0 * ) &- + .
% ISQ\Z Z S[RSR W[QYa RS ]OWS[_ SYWU WPYS T\^OP\\_`S^R\_S O[R)\^WZ Z a [\Q\Z ] \Z W_SR
D WO[ROKOdY\^
# 22,23( . 3 3/ % ,1* )3/ 1 &/ 2* 0 + $ ,)- ! ' "% "
; OYWT\ [WO; \^ SQ W\[OY? SOYV ; OS JS bWQS_
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 18 of 19
%
; SYY4#3+0$/+-'+3-2 e <S_X 4#3+0$03+'3,/,
This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email asspam.
Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 3743-1 Filed 11/11/21 Page 19 of 19