Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29 Filed 02/17/18 Page 1 of 10

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG

1
YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543
2 475 14th Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
3 Telephone: (510) 329-2140
Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
4
5 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, SBN 112910
115A Bartlett St.
6 San Francisco, CA 94110
7 Telephone: 415-285-8091
Facsimile: 415-285-8092
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13 JACLYN MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS,
DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA
14 No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD
ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAH, AND KELSEY
ERWIN, on behalf of themselves and others PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO COUNTY
15 similarly situated, DEFENDANTS’ LETTER OF 2/13/18, and
16 Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO CFMG DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
17 vs.
Declaration of Yolanda Huang
18 Declaration of Carey Lamprecht
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et Declaration of Yolanda Huang – conditionally
19 filed under seal
al.,
20 Defendants.
Hearing: No date set
21 Judge DONATO
22
23 INTRODUCTION
The County defendants herein have asked the Court, by a letter of 2/13/18, to end counsel’s
24
“contact” visits with named plaintiffs and other would-be class members at Santa Rita; to cut off
25
counsel’s connection to class member Alice Fausto, who has given us a signed retainer in the
26
matter, on grounds that she supposedly told a deputy she did not wish to receive more visits from
27
us (which she never told us); to require plaintiffs to identify those prisoners who have retained us
28 or otherwise indicated a desire to participate in the litigation on behalf of women prisoners; and,

Page 1 of 10
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, PLTFS’ REPLY TO COUNTY DEFS’ LETTER OF 2/13/18, and OPP. TO CFMG
DEF.S’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29 Filed 02/17/18 Page 2 of 10

finally, reporting on various aspects of the travail involved---not least because mail in and out of
1
Santa Rita, of, e.g, signed releases, typically takes in excess of two weeks to come or go through,
2
rather than the two to four days everyone is used to---in obtaining the plaintiffs’ medical records
3
from defendant California Forensic Medical Group “CFMG”.
4
In addition, the CFMG defendants, having been served with Summons and the First
5 Amended Complaint on or about February 2, 2018 are requesting extension of the time allowed to
6 them to respond to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, referring only, vaguely, to a need for
7 “investigation”, and claiming prejudice but showing none at all. Needless to say, given what is
8 now the double urgency of the matters plaintiffs have brought before the Court---and particularly
9 the crisis pregnancy of plaintiff DOMINIQUE JACKSON,1 which defendants adamantly refuse to

10 recognize or acknowledge in any meaningful way, to say nothing of the several miscarriages
which have already occurred, which defendants apparently deny all responsibility for.
11
The circumstances are elucidated further below, and in the attached Declaration of Yolanda
12
Huang, Esq.
13
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
14
Contact Visits. As the Court will recall, the County defendants’ sudden, arbitrary refusal
15 to allow counsel to continue visiting our clients and prospective clients and class members at Santa
16 Rita, back at the end of the year, precipitated the emergency filing of this lawsuit, and was
17 discussed at the first hearing on January 8, 2018. At that time, the visiting issue was resolved by
18 assurances from defense counsel that contact visits would be facilitated. Plaintiffs’ counsel never
19 requested that arrangements for legal visits be made by defendants’ counsels, and we would be

20 more than satisfied to arrange for contact visits through normal channels at the jail, provided of
course that requests are not gratuitously denied, delayed, or otherwise interfered with.
21
At the in-person ‘meet and confer’ session between Yolanda Huang for plaintiffs and
22
Gregory Thomas for defendants on February 8, 2018, Ms. Huang explained the difficulties with
23
the non-contact telephone visits, the glaring and wholly obvious problem that confidentiality and
24
privacy, in a visit conducted on a telephone controlled by the defendants and through a bulletproof
25 glass wall, is unavailable to the plaintiffs, regardless of what assurances or promises are made.
26
1
Dominique Jackson has a high-risk pregnancy. She has a heart condition, suffers from asthma, and is pregnant with
27 twins. She has difficulty breathing and neither her heart condition nor her asthma is being treated by defendants. Her
treating medical provider at Highland Hospital stated that the nutrition Ms. Jackson is currently receiving is
28 inadequate for someone carrying twins and recommended home release. Ms. Jackson’s diet and medical care have not
been improved or changed in any way since the filing of this lawsuit.
Page 2 of 10
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, PLTFS’ REPLY TO COUNTY DEFS’ LETTER OF 2/13/18, and OPP. TO CFMG
DEF.S’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29 Filed 02/17/18 Page 3 of 10

Even before the recent gross, armed combat-squad retaliation action against Christina Zepeda2, the
1
normal antagonism from defendant staff members, let alone the currently escalated level, only
2
serves to underscore the plaintiffs’ own certainty (also reinforced by defendants’ moves against
3
plaintiff ALICE FAUSTO, discussed below) that confidentiality in a telephone visit cannot be had;
4
and that, given the stakes, they must refuse telephone visits. The undersigned, in the
5 circumstances, could not agree more.
6 Moreover, every housing unit at Santa Rita has a room available for legal visits, where
7 attorney and client can sit together, spread papers on a table, review documents together and
8 otherwise enjoy normal human contact. Attorneys may choose contact or non-contact interviews.
9 It is said that non-contact visits can be scheduled more quickly, require less time, and can be more

10 convenient for communications that are innocuous and brief; but most prisoners prefer to have
their legal conversations with counsel in person, especially where confidences are concerned, and
11
they are reluctant if not unwilling to engage in conversation over the jail’s telephone system.
12
There is no reason of any kind that these plaintiffs’ lawyer-client meetings should not and cannot
13
be held in the lawyer visiting rooms which is the purpose of these rooms. The lawyer or her
14
investigator can arrange the visits on the same basis also.3
15 Alice Fausto / Identification of Plaintiffs.
16 Alice Fausto and plaintiffs’ counsel have an attorney-client relationship. Ms. Fausto has
17 signed a retainer agreement with plaintiffs’ counsel. (See Decl. Y. Huang, filed conditionally
18 under seal.) Following a meeting between Ms. Fausto and Ms. Huang’s legal assistant assigned to
19 this case, Sheriff’s deputies interviewed Ms. Fausto, questioned her about her relationship with

20 plaintiffs’ counsel, and about this litigation, and videotaped the interview; the video was
apparently turned over to the County defendants’ counsel, and supposedly reflects what is
21
represented as a disavowal of Ms. Fausto’s intention to be involved in the case as a class member.
22
But of course, plaintiffs have no way of knowing what happened, without the tape---let
23
alone what led up to the recorded “interview,” and happened afterwards---unless and until we can
24
speak with Ms. Fausto, out of the presence of defendants and their agents and sympathizers, in a
25
26 2
Recounted in plaintiffs’ pending Second Emergency Motion, and now denied by the County, in high dudgeon, in their
recent Answer. See Docket Nos. X and Y.
27 3
It might be pointed out that defense counsel are not similarly restricted in their access to staff or prisoners at Santa
Rita, and so enjoy an inherent advantage, which would be unfairly compounded by barring contact visits for plaintiffs
28 and their counsel…

Page 3 of 10
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, PLTFS’ REPLY TO COUNTY DEFS’ LETTER OF 2/13/18, and OPP. TO CFMG
DEF.S’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29 Filed 02/17/18 Page 4 of 10

contact visit, on a lawyer-client basis. Unless she then and there declines to do it; in the
1
circumstances, that’s only right.
2
In terms of the demand that plaintiffs disclose the identities of those prisoners who have
3
asked to join the lawsuit on one basis or the other, and have signed retainers, Ms. Fausto’s case---
4
like Ms. Zepeda’s, surely---provides an example of the mischief, the threat, actually, in such a
5 proposal. The plaintiff-prisoners’ continuing concern with possible and actual retaliation, by the
6 police forces they have accused of gross human rights violations, forms a deep and constant
7 backdrop to the prisoners’ claims and their attempt hereinto vindicate them.
8 Plaintiff CHRISTINA ZEPEDA’s arrest following the second press conference is viewed
9 by the women prisoners as clear evidence of defendants Sheriff’s power and his and the

10 Department’s ability and intent to strike blows against plaintiffs who take up the cause. JANE
DOE filed a declaration but requested that her identity be concealed due to her fear of retaliation.
11
Many plaintiffs are concerned that if they voice criticisms of the conditions in Santa Rita Jail, they
12
will suffer for it, at defendants’ hands. Ms. Huang told Mr. Thomas at their meeting that plaintiffs
13
are all hugely concerned about retaliation by his clients, and their associated forces, and the many
14
forms it could take, military and otherwise. He so far has made no response to this issue other
15 than filing a stout defense to plaintiffs’ claims about the commando raid that was carried out
16 against Ms. Zepeda and her brother and their friends on February 8, 2018.
17 Medical Releases. Defendants Sheriff’s requested medical record release authorizations
18 from the named plaintiffs, which of course are in the custody of co-defendant CFMG, and which
19 plaintiffs are ready and willing to have disclosed, if only they are timely presented with the very

20 complicated forms defendants purport to require. Five of the six plaintiffs named so far are in
custody. Two are no longer in Santa Rita, but in other facilities. Mail in and mail out of Santa
21
Rita generally takes more than two weeks, each way, so obtaining releases can be a lengthy matter.
22
A contact visit may be somewhat faster, but the already limited availability of contact visits has
23
also delayed the process. Plaintiffs’ counsel has waited a totally mystifying long time to be
24
approved for visits at the other two facilities.
25 Defense counsel, has taken the position that all plaintiffs have placed their medical history
26 at issue and defendants are entitled to disclosure of their medical records. Mr. Thomas and Ms.
27 Huang discussed a possible stipulation to obviate the need for medical releases; but no proposed
28 text has been forthcoming. During the phone conference between Mr. Thomas, Ms. Huang and

Page 4 of 10
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, PLTFS’ REPLY TO COUNTY DEFS’ LETTER OF 2/13/18, and OPP. TO CFMG
DEF.S’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29 Filed 02/17/18 Page 5 of 10

Mr. Bertling, a protective order was also suggested as a possible solution. Mr. Bertling circulated
1
a proposed form of order, in response to which Ms. Huang proposed this Court’s Model Protective
2
Order instead, for its greater detail and specificity. Defendants have not responded to this
3
suggestion. Plaintiffs have no underlying objection to disclosure of their medical records.
4
Extension of Time. Defendant CFMG has a full three weeks in which to prepare its
5 Answer to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, a week longer than normal under the local rules;
6 they present no reason besides a vague reference to “investigation” for needing extra time. While
7 CFMG asserts they are prejudiced by such a short time, they offer no name or description of any
8 such detriment. Further, it seems clear that, in the circumstances and given the allegations
9 regarding medical nonfeasance, and malfeasance, the defendants’ urge to delay, and drag things

10 out, will be powerful, and will require sustained counter-action if doldrums are to be avoided and
Justice done promptly.
11
During the meet and confer phone call, Ms. Huang suggested that plaintiffs would not be
12
averse to an extension of time for CFMG to respond to the Motion, if some provisional agreements
13
could be reached that would provide minimum health care availability for pregnant plaintiffs,
14
some improvement of their diet, and exercise regimen, and real limitations on the use of
15 isolation/solitary confinement against them. She offered to submit detailed proposals the next day
16 if defendants were interested. Neither attorney made any response to this offer. (Dec. Y. Huang
17 ¶3) Instead, Mr. Bertling expatiated on the appropriateness of CFMG placing pregnant women
18 with opioid dependency issues into “cold turkey” withdrawal, under supposed medical
19 supervision; then he filed his application for an extension of time. Dec. Y. Huang ¶6. Mr.

20 Bertling did not separately request additional time for responding to the first amended complaint.
Dec. Y. Huang ¶8.
21
Meanwhile, the aspect of the crisis involving the filthy kitchen, and lack of sanitation in
22
food preparation and storage, was advanced this past week when a kitchen worker, helping to
23
prepare a meal for the population, was attacked and scratched on the hand by a mouse or rat.
24
CFMG administered a tetanus shot.
25 Time is truly of the essence here, and irreparable injury is being sustained, as it has been,
26 as well as threatened. The Court must not allow itself to be side-tracked or distracted from timely
27 plenary attention to the deplorable matters the plaintiffs have placed before it in this case.
28 ///

Page 5 of 10
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, PLTFS’ REPLY TO COUNTY DEFS’ LETTER OF 2/13/18, and OPP. TO CFMG
DEF.S’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29 Filed 02/17/18 Page 6 of 10

1
ARGUMENT
2
1. No Extension of The Time To Answer The Emergency Motion Should Be Allowed.
3
To take the last point first, plaintiffs strongly oppose any extension of time or other delay
4
of this urgent and important matter. The inadequate medical care we have complained of, the
5 inadequate nutrition and exercise, and the dangerous lack of sanitation and rodent infestation in the
6 kitchen and food storage area have continued, and grown worse, since the case was filed at the
7 January 4, 2018, increasing the threat to plaintiffs’ health and that of their arriving children. In
8 circumstances where a number of miscarriages have already occurred during the mothers’ sojourns
9 in Santa Rita, the danger to the Subclass members still in defendants’ custody---and hence the

10 importance of prompt action---could hardly be more patent. Defendants assert they will be
prejudiced if not granted more time to answer, but they do not say how, and there is no indication
11
of any detriment to them in having three weeks to respond, in the circumstances. On the contrary,
12
the clear interest of CFMG, as the contract provider of all medical services in the Jail, is to have
13
the grave charges against them herein heard and determined as soon as possible, so the problems
14
can be remedied before they incur any further liability. Or the libel can be rebutted and rebuked,
15 as the case may be...
16 CFMG surely has free access to its own records, and full, unfettered ability to
17 communicate with its employees and staff working at Sana Rita. Their moving papers do not
18 explain or touch upon their failure to respond to plaintiffs’ offer to accommodate the request for
19 more time if some negotiated minimum standards for the medical care, nutrition, exercise, and

20 limitations on the use of solitary confinement could be agreed upon. Their lack of response, as
with counsel’s protective order counter-proposal and other straws in the wind, are strong
21
indications that the defense approach to the allegations against them will consist of categorical
22
denials, and stonewalling (hopefully without any more retaliation…). So be it, but let’s get busy
23
with it, before any more babies are barred from the lives that await them. The evidence showing
24
the emergency, and crisis, must be brought to light as soon as possible.
25
26 2. Defendants Have No Fair Or Reasonable Need To Bar The Plaintiff-Prisoners
From “Contact Visits” With Their Attorneys.
27
The County defendants complain in their letter of a purported “inconvenience” to them of
28
permitting plaintiffs to have contact visits with their lawyers. These contact visits are essential for
Page 6 of 10
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, PLTFS’ REPLY TO COUNTY DEFS’ LETTER OF 2/13/18, and OPP. TO CFMG
DEF.S’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29 Filed 02/17/18 Page 7 of 10

plaintiffs and their counsels. It is plaintiffs’ counsel’s pattern and practice to regularly have
1
contact visits with clients and that such visits are important and conducive to successful attorney-
2
client relationship, and litigation outcome. See Dec. Y. Huang, ¶2. Meaningful communications
3
with individuals in jail is only possible through contact visits. To prevent contact visits would be a
4
significant interference with the attorney-client relationship.
5 To require plaintiffs to communicate with counsel only or even primarily through the jail’s
6 telephone system is to subject plaintiffs to oversight and recording of these communications by the
7 defendant Sheriff’s personnel. Attorney Thomas admits that all telephone conversations are
8 recorded, as the plaintiff-prisoners well know. While defendants Sheriff maintain that for
9 attorney-client non-contact visits, “such interviews are not monitored and the recordings of such

10 conversation are not saved,” this means that the recordings are still reviewed to determine that
these are attorney-client communications and there is a selective process by which these particular
11
recordings are deleted or not saved. This process requires intervention by Sheriff’s deputies and is
12
an unacceptable breach and intrusion into the attorney client privilege. A purported undertaking
13
by defendants to refrain from recording attorney-client phone calls is simply put, a ‘non-starter.’
14
“ ‘[T]he privilege is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, without regard to
15 relevance, necessity or any particular circumstances peculiar to the case.’ (cite omitted.)”
16 Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal. 4th 725, 732 (2009). “The privilege ‘has been
17 a hallmark of Anglo–American jurisprudence for almost 400 years.’ (Mitchell v. Superior Court
18 (1984) 37 Cal.3d 591, 599, 208 Cal.Rptr. 886, 691 P.2d 642.) Its fundamental purpose “is to
19 safeguard the confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and

20 open discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding individual legal matters.” Costco Wholesale
Corp. v. Superior Court, supra at 732.
21
Federal law upholds attorney client privilege with the same breath and strength of
22
protection. Federal Rule of Evidence 501 states that privilege is governed by “[t]he common law--
23
as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and experience--… unless any of the
24
following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; or rules prescribed
25 by the Supreme Court.” And “in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or
26 defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision.”
27 The attorney–client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential
communications known to the common law. 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2290
28
(McNaughton rev. 1961). Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication

Page 7 of 10
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, PLTFS’ REPLY TO COUNTY DEFS’ LETTER OF 2/13/18, and OPP. TO CFMG
DEF.S’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29 Filed 02/17/18 Page 8 of 10

between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the
1
observance of law and administration of justice. The privilege recognizes that sound legal
2 advice or advocacy serves public ends and that such advice or advocacy depends upon
the lawyer's being fully informed by the client. As we stated last Term in Trammel v.
3 United States, 445 U.S. 40, 51, 100 S.Ct. 906, 913, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980): “The lawyer–
client privilege rests on the need for the advocate and counselor to know all that relates to
4
the client's reasons for seeking representation if the professional mission is to be carried
5 out.”
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981)
6
7 To require plaintiffs to submit their confidential attorney client communications to
defendants Sheriff, wherein defendants Sheriffs record all communications and then have the sole
8
power to review and determine that the conversation is protected and then take the affirmative
9
action of ending the review and erasing the recording, is an unacceptable intrusion into plaintiff’s
10
right to confidentiality and other benefits of the attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, plaintiffs
11
have no means to verify that the defendants Sheriffs did not review a given conversation, and did
12 in fact erase the recording, without listening to it. The system advocated by defendants Sheriff
13 places all the power and control over monitoring these conversations with said defendants, which
14 is simply unacceptable. Only in the setting of a confidential conversation with counsel, have
15 plaintiffs been able to speak their minds, and reveal the true depth of their experiences. The
16 attorney-client privilege “is founded upon the necessity, in the interest and administration of

17 justice, of the aid of persons having knowledge of the law and skilled in its practice, which
assistance can only be safely and readily availed of when free from the consequences or the
18
apprehension of disclosure”. Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 470, (1888).
19
3. The Defendants should not be Permitted to Invade the Attorney-Client
20 relationship with Alice Fausto, or Any Other prisoners who have consulted with
Counsel about the Matters at Issue in This Case.
21
22 Defendants should be barred from breaching Alice Fausto’s attorney-client relationship
with plaintiffs’ counsel, or the attorney-client relationship between any prisoner and counsel for
23
the plaintiffs in this case. Sheriff’s deputies should be barred from interviewing plaintiffs and
24
required to erase any recordings of their interview with Alice Fausto. Defendants should be barred
25
from preventing or interfering with communication and contact between Alice Fausto and her
26
counsel.
27 California Rules of Professional Conduct 2-100 prohibits an attorney from communicating
28 directly or indirectly with a represented party [emphasis added]. The interview of Ms. Fausto by

Page 8 of 10
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, PLTFS’ REPLY TO COUNTY DEFS’ LETTER OF 2/13/18, and OPP. TO CFMG
DEF.S’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29 Filed 02/17/18 Page 9 of 10

Sheriff’s deputies was specifically for the purpose of obtaining information for use by defense
1
counsel in resisting---and discrediting---plaintiffs’ claims herein; it is just the type of indirect
2
communication barred by Rule 2-100. “The rule [Rule 2-100] exists in order to preserve the
3
attorney-client relationship and the proper functioning of the administration of justice.” Id.
4
(citation and quotations marks omitted).
5 The County defendants’ request to bar continued contact between Alice Fausto and
6 plaintiffs’ counsel should be denied---or should be granted only after Ms. Fausto is given a fair,
7 and safe, opportunity to be heard regarding her actual fears and desires regarding involvement
8 herein as a plaintiff class member.
9 And, the defendants should be instructed to refrain from communicating with any

10 represented party regarding this litigation, or communications between the party and counsel; and
their demand for disclosure of which prisoners have signed retainer agreements, or otherwise
11
shown an interest in pursuing or helping pursue the plaintiffs’ claims herein, should be firmly
12
rejected, until the point is reached where the issue becomes moot.
13
4. Plaintiffs must be Protected and Secure from Intimidation, Harassment, and all
14 forms of Retaliation by defendants and their Associates.
15 All the plaintiffs and class members we have talked to---and several others through them---
16 have expressed strong, abiding concerns regarding possible and threatened retaliation and
17 harassment by defendants, in payback for the prisoners’ complaints about various aspects of the

18 scandal at Santa Rita. And now, as the sense of scandal spreads, in particular to wildly unhealthy
foulness and infestation in the kitchen, and food storage, as gruesomely reported in the within
19
Declaration of Carey Lamprecht ¶3, the danger of payback also spreads. At this stage and on this
20
record, to give express or implied permission for defendants to in any way control or modify, or
21
intrude at all into the attorney-client relationships prisoner-plaintiffs have made, would be to
22
countenance a form of both, and would effectively disrupt and thwart plaintiffs’ ability to report
23
and seek redress regarding wrongful treatment and conditions inside the Santa Rita Jail.
24 This aspect of the crisis at Santa Rita---the same cold hostility and offhand abuse of
25 authority which lay behind the bizarre and dangerous Commando action by defendants’ “SWAT
26 Team” against Christina Zepeda and her friends in Heyward on February 8, and, in a different but
27 no less malevolent form, led to, e.g., the unrelieved agony of ‘Candace,’ the prisoner left

28 screaming with labor pains last year, until she delivered her baby, alone and unassisted, while

Page 9 of 10
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, PLTFS’ REPLY TO COUNTY DEFS’ LETTER OF 2/13/18, and OPP. TO CFMG
DEF.S’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29 Filed 02/17/18 Page 10 of 10

locked up in the Hole---is at the root of the problems plaintiffs complain of. The Court is urged to
1
act quickly and firmly to relieve its unconscionable effects as fully as it can. Remembering the
2
babies who have perished already, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that the survival and
3
health and well-being of an unknown number of unborn children, and their mothers, are what is at
4
stake.
5 WHEREFORE, the Court is earnestly requested to convene any needed hearing as soon as
6 practicable, to assess the merits of these applications by defendants, and then to:
7
a. DENY defendant CFMG’s Request for order extending their time to Answer the
8
Motion for Preliminary Injunction;
9
10 b. OVERRULE the County defendants’ request to end contact visits between the plaintiff-
prisoners herein---including prospective plaintiffs---and their lawyers; and DIRECT
11
that such visiting be conducted on the same private, in-person basis as defendants
12
provide for legal visits between jailed criminal defendants and their lawyers;
13
14 c. Conduct a careful Inquiry---perhaps by referral to a Magistrate-Judge---into the

15 circumstances surrounding the willing involvement with the plaintiffs, vel non, of the
prisoner ALICE FAUSTO; and DENY defendants’ Request for an Order requiring
16
plaintiffs’ counsel to disclose to them immediately the identities of those prisoners and
17
former prisoners who have agreed to join the case as plaintiffs; and,
18
19 d. Direct the parties to engage in further ‘meet and confer’ efforts to enable the prompt
20 the disclosure of medical records, under an appropriate protective order (likely best

21 based on the Court’s own Model Order). We ask also for such other and further relief
as may be deemed just and appropriate
22
Respectfully submitted,
23
Dated: February 16, 2018 LAW OFFICE OF YOLANDA HUANG
24
/s/ Yolanda Huang______
25 YOLANDA HUANG
26
DENNIS CUNNINGHAM
27 /s/ Dennis Cunningham___

28 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Page 10 of 10
Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, PLTFS’ REPLY TO COUNTY DEFS’ LETTER OF 2/13/18, and OPP. TO CFMG
DEF.S’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29-1 Filed 02/17/18 Page 1 of 5

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG

1
YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543
2 475 14th Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
3 Telephone: (510) 329-2140
Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
4
5 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, SBN 112910
115A Bartlett St.
6 San Francisco, CA 94110
7 Telephone: 415-285-8091
Facsimile: 415-285-8092
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13 JACLYN MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS,
DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA
No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD
14 ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAH, AND KELSEY
ERWIN, on behalf of themselves and others DECLARATION OF CAREY LAMPRECHT
15 similarly situated, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FORENSIC
16 Plaintiffs, MEDICAL GROUP, INC.’S REQUEST FOR
AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND RESPONSE
17 vs. TO DEFENDANTS ALAMEDA COUNTY
SHERIFFS’ OFFICE LETTER TO THE
18 COURT
19 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et
al.,
20 Defendants.
21
22 I, CAREY LAMPRECHT, declare:
1. I am a certified California paralegal employed by the Law Offices of Yolanda Huang. I
23
am assigned to the above entitled case. I make this declaration of my own knowledge and if
24
called to testify, I can and will testify as stated herein.
25
2. One of my responsibilities is fielding communications from and visiting with plaintiffs and
26
members of the plaintiff class to obtain information on conditions inside Santa Rita Jail. On
27 February 9, 2018, I had contact visits at Santa Rita Jail with Erin Ellis, Shani Jones and Sandra
28 Griffin. All three of them gave me updates on conditions in the jail.

Page 1 of 4

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, Dec. C.Lamprecht, Support Pltfs Opp to CFMG App & Sheriff’s Ltr.
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29-1 Filed 02/17/18 Page 2 of 5

3. All three of them reported that in the prior week, a female kitchen worker in their housing
1
unit had been scratched by a rat or a mouse while working in the kitchen. All three relayed the
2
story they heard, which was the rodent scratched this worker’s arm, when this female kitchen
3
worker was reaching up into a food storage cabinet. The rat or mouse jumped out of the cabinet
4
onto her arm, turned around and ran back into the cabinet, in the process scratching her arm. Her
5 arm broke out in a response to the scratches. Erin Ellis reported that almost entire week passed
6 before the medical staff decided to give this kitchen worker a tetanus shot. Erin Ellis and Sandra
7 Griffin each stated that they have seen animal bite marks in the bread that they were served.
8 Sandra Griffin stated that the morning of February 9, 2018, she found rat feces in oatmeal served
9 as breakfast to her.

10 4. Erin Ellis reported that over the last two months, despite being pregnant, she had not
gained any weight. Erin Ellis did report that she is now being given a piece of fruit with each
11
meal, such as a pear (once), an apple or orange. She also stated that she filed a grievance with the
12
jail because a female prisoner who has tested positive for tuberculosis (T.B.) exposure after her
13
arm swelled up from a T.B. test upon booking was placed in the same POD as Erin Ellis, and she
14
is concerned that this could pose a problem for her health and her pregnancy. Attached as Exhibit
15 A is a true and correct copy of the grievance that Erin Ellis provided me.
16 5. Shani Jones reported that she was a kitchen worker for two days and then quit. She
17 witnessed numerous concerns that could constitute health code violations. The concerns include:
18 standing water on the floors of the kitchen, food that is compacted into the grout of the floor that
19 has not been cleaned so it appears black like grout, walk-in refrigerator temperatures that are

20 approximately fifteen or more degrees too warm, open containers with no lids of food in the
refrigerator where vermin are frequently seen, and the total lack of soap in the kitchen or in the
21
bathrooms for kitchen workers to wash their hands, as they are required to do, before handling
22
food. This week, a hired female kitchen employee fell in the kitchen and had a bruised side of the
23
face, jaw and black eye.
24
6. Shani Jones reported that when working in the kitchen in November of 2017, she was
25 wiping down a surface with a dirty rag, and the rag had only water, no cleanser, so Shani Jones
26 knew she was merely moving the bacteria around. She was provided no gloves, disinfectant or
27 cleanser. While she was doing this task, some of the water from the filthy rag got onto Ms.
28

Page 2 of 4

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, Dec. C.Lamprecht, Support Pltfs Opp to CFMG App & Sheriff’s Ltr.
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29-1 Filed 02/17/18 Page 3 of 5

Jones’ lip, which swelled immediately, resulted in infection of some sort for one-and-a-half to
1
two weeks.
2
7. Shani Jones reported other environmental toxins and health concerns because since her
3
recent incarceration beginning October of 2017, her hair has been thinning and falling out, giving
4
her great concern. Her hair falls out in clumps in the shower drain, when she combs it,
5 additionally, she has lost two to three inches in length at the ends due to brittleness.
6
7 I make this declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,
8 executed this 16th day of February, 2018, in San Francisco, California.
9 /s/ Carey Lamprecht______
CAREY LAMPRECHT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 3 of 4

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, Dec. C.Lamprecht, Support Pltfs Opp to CFMG App & Sheriff’s Ltr.
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29-1 Filed 02/17/18 Page 4 of 5

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 EXHIBIT A
26
27
28

Page 4 of 4

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, Dec. C.Lamprecht, Support Pltfs Opp to CFMG App & Sheriff’s Ltr.
Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29-1 Filed 02/17/18 Page 5 of 5
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29-2 Filed 02/17/18 Page 1 of 3

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG

1
YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543
2 475 14th Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
3 Telephone: (510) 329-2140
Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
4
5 DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, SBN 112910
115A Bartlett St.
6 San Francisco, CA 94110
7 Telephone: 415-285-8091
Facsimile: 415-285-8092
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13 JACLYN MOHRBACHER, ERIN ELLIS,
DOMINIQUE JACKSON, CHRISTINA
14 No. 3:18-cv-00050-JD
ZEPEDA, ALEXIS WAH, AND KELSEY
ERWIN, on behalf of themselves and others DECLARATION OF YOLANDA HUANG IN
15 similarly situated, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
16 Plaintiffs, GROUP, INC.’S REQUEST FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME AND RESPONSE TO
17 vs. DEFENDANTS ALAMEDA COUNTY
SHERIFFS’ OFFICE LETTER TO THE
18 COURT
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et ¶¶9-12 and EXHIBIT A, Filed Conditionally
19 Under Seal
al.,
20 Defendants.
21
I, YOLANDA HUANG, declare:
22
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California, and make this declaration of
23
my own knowledge. If called to testify, I can and will testify as stated herein.
24
2. In my practice, it is my practice to set up regular and consistent communications with
25
clients. This is based upon my experience that a successful trial outcome requires the full
26 engagement of incarcerated clients in the ongoing matters of the litigation, reviews of strategies
27 and the evidence as it becomes available. For clients who are incarcerated, the only means of
28 having this communication is through in-person, contact visits because all telephone

Page 1 of 3

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, Dec. Y.Huang/Support Pltfs’ Opp to CFMG Motion to Extend Time Defs. Sheriff Ltr.
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29-2 Filed 02/17/18 Page 2 of 3

communications are recorded and monitored by jail staff. Even in-person non-contact visits are
1
conducted over the telephone system, in which all conversations are recorded. In addition the non-
2
contact visits are conducted in booths, some of which are not enclosed and through bullet-proof
3
glass.
4
3. On February 6, 2018, I received an email communication from CFMG’s attorney,
5 requesting an extension of time for responding to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. I
6 responded that plaintiffs’ concerns with the :” pressing situation due to the fragile and quickly
7 changing needs of unborn children.” And highlighted the urgency due to the fact that plaintiffs
8 filed within two weeks rather than taking the full 30 days permitted for filing our motion, stating
9 “we moved forward with the motion on an expedited basis due to our concern over the pressing

10 needs of our clients and members of the class.”. (See Dec. P. Bertling, Ex. B)
I further proposed, as a compromise that, “ if some basic agreements could be reached regarding
11
health care availability, the diet, limitations on the use of isolation/solitary confinement,”
12
plaintiffs would be amenable to an extension of time, and offered to present a proposal the next
13
day if there were interest on the part of defendants. (See Dec. P. Bertling, Ex. B) There was no
14
response to this proposal, and I concluded that the defense counsels were not willing to discuss the
15 essence of our issues.
16 4. On January 8, 2018, I traveled to the office of Gregory Thomas at his request to meet and
17 confer regarding the medical release authorizations, Alice Fausto and contact visits. Initially, we
18 had agreed that Peter Bertling, counsel for California Forensic Medical Group would join us by
19 phone regarding the medical release authorizations. However, Mr. Bertling was unable to do so, and

20 so we set up a telephone conference call for later in the afternoon, and Mr. Thomas and I had our
meeting.
21
5. In my meeting with Mr. Thomas, I explained that the difficulty with obtaining the medical
22
releases was due in main part to the obstacles in meeting with clients, and obtaining their signatures.
23
We had not received the specific form releases from Mr. Thomas ‘ office until January 26, 2018, so
24
our first opportunity to obtain signatures was not until our subsequent visit, on February 2, 2018.
25 The releases which we obtained, we submitted to Mr. Thomas.
26 6. In response to Mr. Bertling’s request for delay in plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
27 injunction, I proposed that in order to provide defendant CFMG with the extension they requested,
28 plaintiffs wanted to propose some minimum conditions regarding nutrition and health care, exercise

Page 2 of 3

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, Dec. Y.Huang/Support Pltfs’ Opp to CFMG Motion to Extend Time Defs. Sheriff Ltr.
 Case 3:18-cv-00050-JD Document 29-2 Filed 02/17/18 Page 3 of 3

and restrictions on the use of restraints and solitary confinement. Neither defense counsel responded
1
to this proposal. Mr. Bertling responded with his contention that CFMG’s program of placing
2
pregnant women into opiate withdrawal was appropriate if under medical supervision.
3
7. During the later telephone conference call, the proposal to resolve the issue of the medical
4
releases was, as I understood it, involved a stipulation between the parties for CFMG to release the
5 plaintiffs’ medical records, subject to a protective order. Later, when CFMG circulated their
6 proposed protective order, it did not address the issue of the medical records release. Further, the
7 proposed CFMG protective order was significantly at variance with this Court’s Model Protective
8 Order which is clear, precise and specific. I therefore, proposed that we utilize this Court’s Model
9 Protective Order, and offered to wordsmith a stipulation. Mr. Bertling objected to the Model

10 Protective Order, and Mr. Thomas had no response.

8. On February 4, 2018, Mr. Thomas requested a thirty day extension of time on behalf of
11
defendants Sheriff to respond to the First Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs granted. Mr.
12
Bertling has not made a request for additional time to respond to the First Amended Complaint.
13
9. Paragraphs 9 thru 12, and Exhibit A are submitted pursuant to Administrative Motion to File
14
Under Seal.
15 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
16 knowledge and understanding. Executed this 14th day of February in Berkeley, California.
17
18 /s/ Yolanda Huang______
YOLANDA HUANG
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 3 of 3

Mohrbacher v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 3:18-cv-00050, Dec. Y.Huang/Support Pltfs’ Opp to CFMG Motion to Extend Time Defs. Sheriff Ltr.