Responses of Gustavus Adolphus Puryear IV
Nominee to the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Tennessee
To Additional Written Questions of Senator Diane Feinstein

1. Classification of Zero-Tolerance Events. Ronald T. Jones, a former
employee of Corrections Corporation of America, has alleged that you
oversaw a system in which reports of disturbances and major violent
incidents at CCA prisons were downplayed. According to press reports, it
was not unusual for Mr. Jones to be instructed not to count major incidents
as "zero-tolerance events," even though the incidents met CCA's internal
criteria for being counted in that category.

Please respond to Mr. Jones's allegations.
Response: The allegations are false. I appreciate this opportunity to respond
to them. Incident reports are made by facility employees to appropriate
governmental personnel as provided by contract or regulation, and are
designed to complement the observations of the governmental agency's own
on-site monitors. The Quality Assurance Department (in which Mr. Jones
once worked) is not involved in the reporting of incidents at a CCA facility to
governmental customers.
CCA's governmental customers usually have an on-site contract monitor to
whom incident reports can be made, though, in a major incident, there may be
elaborate incident reporting mechanisms that can include notification to very
senior governmental officials (e.g., a state corrections commissioner) and to
local law enforcement authorities. These procedures vary by facility,
customer and event, and thus the reporting of incidents is decentralized.
After the incident is appropriately reported, the CCA Quality Assurance
Department collects all CCA incident data and classifies it for the sole
purpose of improving the quality of CCA's operations. At the request of
CCA's Operations Department, five types of incidents are internally
designated as "Zero Tolerance" events: unnatural deaths (homicides or
suicides), sexual assaults, hostage-takings, escapes, and disruptive events.
The designation of such data is used for internal purposes only. It is neither
designed for nor provided to anyone outside of CCA.
With this background in mind, I have never sought to "downplay" violent
incidents within CCA, nor is there any reason for me to do so. The
compensation of CCA's executive officers, including my own, is not affected
in any way by "Zero Tolerance" events, as is made clear in CCA's annual
proxy statement, which is publicly available. My interest has always been to
ensure that our internal incident reports are accurate. As a lawyer, my
primary ethical duty to CCA is to its Board of Directors, which receives the

Zero Tolerance data collected and classified by the Quality Assurance
Department. To fulfill that duty, I have sought assurances from Mike
Quinlan, the Senior Vice President who supervises the Quality Assurance
Department, that Quality Assurance was getting all incident data from
facilities.
For that reason, I am the internal sponsor of the Company's significant new
investment in a technology system to automate incident reporting. This
system should not only reduce delays in the notification of incidents to the
Quality Assurance Department, but also should improve the accuracy and
reliability of the data received.
Most important, I strongly believe in hiring the right person and trusting that
person to perform his or her function. Mike Quinlan is one of the most
experienced corrections professionals in the country. He has spent 37 years in
corrections, with 22 years at the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He served as
Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for five years, and, while serving as
Director, oversaw the creation of the Program Review Division - the Bureau's
own quality audit process. He has been a colleague of mine at CCA since my
first day with the Company, having previously served as CCA' s Chief
Operating Officer. The American Correctional Association recently bestowed
upon him its highest honor, the E.R. Cass Award. I trust his jUdgment in
corrections matters, and I have confidence in his honesty. Because of his vast
expertise and experience in this area, Mr. Quinlan is responsible for defining
"Zero Tolerance" events and applying those definitions to specific incidents.
I have also supported at least two changes that I recall Mr. Quinlan making to
the defillitionsof"Zero Tolerance" events. Specifically, Mr. Quinlan changed
the definitions of "disruptive event" and "sexual assault." These changes
broadened those definitions and thereby increased the potential number of
such events to be repOlted. These changes are discussed in more detail later.
Finally, to clarify the false nature of Mr. Jones's allegations, I attach a letter
from Mr. Quinlan to Representative Mike Turner of the Tennessee House of
Representatives. See Exhibit A. This very detailed letter and its attachments
address the same concerns that you have raised in these questions, and I
believe it sheds important light on the press accounts underlying them.
Did you ever discuss, create, develop, implement, or approve a policy to
classify or to reclassify incidents at CCA prisons, either in general or in
response to specific incidents?
Response: Yes. On at least two occasions that I recall Mr. Quinlan informed
me that he was expanding the definition of two types of "Zero Tolerance"
events. I have never discussed, created, developed, implemented, or approved
a policy that would have had the effect of contracting the number of incidents

2

reported as "Zero Tolerance" events, either in general or in response to
specific incidents.
In 2006 the definition of "disruptive event" was broadened, while in 2007 the
definition of "sexual assault" was broadened to include behaviors not
previously covered. The effect of these changes is potentially to increase the
number of incidents classified as "Zero Tolerance" events at CCA prisons. I
do not recall that Mr. Quinlan's changes were prompted by specific incidents.
While I approved of the changed definitions, I left the development of such
definitions and the application of the definitions to particular incidents
squarely within the discretion of Mike Quinlan.

To your knowledge, was anyone at CCA ever instructed to reclassify an
incident as something other than a "zero tolerance" event?
Response: I believe Mr. Quinlan informed me of two or three incidents over
the last three and one-half years that were initially classified as "disruptive
events" (i.e., a type of "Zero Tolerance" event) based on original incident
reports that he later reclassified as a result of his learning additional
information about each incident. It is thus possible that he would have
instructed someone within the Quality Assurance Department to reClassify
those events; however, I have not.

Did you ever tell or advise anyone directly or indirectly that an incident
should be reclassified?
Response: No.

Did you ever discuss, agree with, or approve a suggestion made by
someone else that an incident should be reclassified?
Response: I believe Mike Quinlan informed me of two or three incidents
over the last three and one-half years that were initially classified by Quality
Assurance as "disruptive events" based on original incident reports that he
later reclassified as a result of his learning additional information about each
incident. I recall agreeing with Mr. Quinlan'S changes.

2. Use of Attorney-Client Privilege. Mr. Jones has also alleged that starting in
2005 you ordered him to label detailed audit reports, which included factual
data on incidents at prisons, as attoniey-client privileged documents.
According to Mr. Jones, senior quality assurance staff at CCA told him you
wanted this label to be added to prevent the information from being
accessible under sunshine laws. The effect of this practice, according to Mr.
Jones, was that CCA's contract partners received only summary audit

3

reports - with much less information about serious incidents - starting in
2005.

Did you ever discuss, create, develop, implement, or approve a policy of
extending or adding a privilege label to facility audit documents that
previously were not treated as privileged? If yes, please explain why and
explain the legal analysis to support a claim of privilege for such
documents?
Response: Before responding to the first question presented, I appreciate the
opportunity to clarify certain statements attributed to Mr. Jones. First, I never
spoke to Mr. Jones about a substantive issue or the labeling of documents.
There were three inteITI1ediate supervisors between Mr. Jones and me, and I
simply did not have anything more than very casual, incidental conversations
with him.
Second, quality assurance auditors do not usually provide information on
individual incidents. Thus, audit reports do not usually include "factual data
on incidents at prisons." The actual audit reports contain measurements of a
facility's operational competency. They are not investigations of incidents.
Further, as a point of clarification, the internal labeling of documents is not an
assertion or claim of privilege. In fact, I know that CCA has produced
documents to parties litigating against CCA that bear "privileged" labels
(many of which were designed before I arrived at the Company and are still in
use today), as well as to governmental investigators. This production
underscores the fact tl1at inte111al labeling cannot convert otherwise
unprivileged documents into privileged ones. Assertions of privilege must be
made on a case-by-case basis in response to a legal request for the document.
Documents are labeled merely to ensure that a company has every opportunity
to assess whether a privilege applies to a particular document before
producing it in response to a legal request to produce that document.
Returning to the question you have posed, I did have a discussion with Mike
Quinlan and Don Murray (Managing Director, Quality Assurance) about our
desire to encourage auditors' complete candor in sharing observed concerns
outside of the audit measurements. As I understood it, these observations
might be made while conducting the audit, and they could relate to areas of
potential risk to the Company, including threatened or likely litigation.
Messrs. Quinlan and Mun"ay were concerned that including such observations
in the audit document itself could lead to their disclosure, which would
ultimately chill frank communication. In fact, as I recall it, since those
observations were written into one of the first few audit reports, such
comments had already been released pursuant to an open-records request.

4

We then discussed the limited number of facilities where such audit
documents had to be released to the customer (I believe there were two such
facilities). We also discussed that these observations were not a part of the
audit measurements themselves. Finally, we discussed the desirability of
continuing to receive such suggestions from the auditors in order to improve
the quality of CCA' s operations.
At that time, I suggested that the Company may have an additional basis for
seeking to protect such observations. I believe I mentioned possible attorneyclient privilege issues, work product protections, and potential self-evaluative
privilege issues (in some jurisdictions). I asked that Mr. Quinlan and Mr.
Murray speak with Steve Groom and any members of his staff he wished to
involve. Mr. Groom serves as Deputy General Counsel and Vice President,
Litigation Management. He is a lawyer with 30 years of experience, some as
a trial lawyer and some in the general counsel's offices oflarge corporations.
I was later told that Mr. Groom had met at length with Messrs. Quinlan and
Murray. I was informed that, as a result ofthat meeting, the Quality
Assurance Department clarified that any observational concerns separate from
the audit measurements were to be included only in documents addressed to
the legal department and seeking its advice, and that such documents were to
be marked as privileged. In the sense that I suggested the meeting and was
comfortable with my understanding of its result, I was involved in the
"discussion" or "creation" of such labels.
The labeling of these documents was of far less significance to me than
making sure we were getting candid information to advise the Company to
take steps to protect the health and safety of our employees and the inmates
entlUsted to our care. I did not perform legal research on the subject, and I did
not review the implementation or labeling of document types. In any event, I
believed then, and believe now, that flagging such documents for
consideration of any applicable privileges before they might be released was
plUdent, appropriate, and conducive to candor.
To my knowledge, CCA has not claimed a privilege in litigation with respect
to these documents.
Did you ever communicate that you wanted to use the privilege label to
shield information from sunshine or freedom-of-information laws?
Response: I did not communicate that the privilege label would be used to
shield information from sunshine or freedom-of-information laws; however,
the label was intended to ensure legal review of any such document before it
would be given to a third party. This is a common practice among
corporations. This confidentiality is particularly important here, because it
ensures that CCA gets candid observations from auditors about observed
concerns. If an auditor assumed that such docwnents would appear in the

5

press, that auditor would be hesitant to convey serious concerns to the
company, especially if such concerns might impact an employee's continued
employment.
Since the issue of whether such a document might be subject to sunshine or
freedom-of-information laws is not controlled by the "hibel," I would not have
communicated that the label would shield document production from such
laws.
At all times, I and the others discussing the manner in which these
observations would be made were motivated by a desire to encourage frank
and candid observations that might prevent tragedies in CCA's facilities. The
desire was to improve the safety and security of our facilities, which would be
of benefit to both CCA's employees and the inmates entrusted to CCA's care.
Did CCA ever consider using a different designation, such as
"Confidential" or "For Internal Use Only," instead of the attorney-client
privilege label?

Response: I do not recall any discussions of such different designations.
From a legal standpoint, of course, the "label" does not define the right to
confidentiality in the face of an appropriate discovery or other legal request.

In addition, who was made aware that the more detailed, newly
privileged audit documents existed?
Response: Our customers received the new audit report with its detailed
measurements. As to any separate observational concerns raised by auditors
for internal use, many members ofthe Quality Assurance and Legal
departments were aware that confidential documents existed containing those
observations, as did senior personnel within the Operations Department.
Were CCA's contract partners (including federal, state, and/or local
corrections authorities) aware?
Response: Because the intent was to use such documents for internal
purposes only, so that auditors would feel free to make candid observations to
help protect the health and safety of tCA's employees and inmates, we did
not make customers aware of these documents. Customers were already
receiving, if they wished, the audit report with its detailed measurements, and
they were receiving all incident reports required from the facility.
CCA's contract partners receive more data now than ever. The audit
measurements in use now (and available to any customer that requests them)
are far more detailed and relevant than what was provided to CCA's contract
partners before Quality Assurance was moved under my supervision. The

6

vast majority of these contract partners also conduct their own audits of
CCA's facilities and have their own on-site monitors that scrutinize CCA's
operations.
Was anyone else aware?
Response: CCA did not make anyone else aware to my knowledge. The
intent was to use such doclill1ents for intemal purposes only, so that auditors
would feel free to make candid observations that might protect the health and
safety ofCCA's employees and inmates.
Has CCA ever shared such documents with a contract partner or with
others?
Response: CCA does share the audit report containing ratings and
measurements, but not the separate commentary made by auditors. I am not
aware of any request to share such documents.
CCA does share the audit report with any customer that desires to see it,
regardless of whether CCA is obligated by contract or regulation to provide it.
(I am aware of only two contracts that specifically require CCA to conduct a
quality assurance audit of a facility and provide that report to the customer,
though the fonn ofthe audit and accompanying report are unspecified.)
Moreover, as discussed, most contract partners conduct their own audits of
CCA facilities in addition to having a full-time on-site monitor.
Has CCA used a claim of attorney-client privilege to withhold such
documents when requested by a contract partner, by a government
investigator, by a party in litigation or arbitration, or in a sunshine or
freedom-oC-information request?
Response: Neither I nor others within CCA's legal department are aware that
CCA has asserted a privilege to withhold such documents.
3. Hutto Facility. A report in the New Yorker magazine in March 2008
indicated that a guard at CCA's T. Don Hutto immigrant detention center
was caught engaging in sexual activity with a prisoner in May 2007. The
guard reportedly was not prosecuted.
Please explain your response to this incident.
Response: As you lmow, I serve as a commissioner of the National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission, and an event like this is extremely troubling to
me. I have leamed, both through my service on that commission and my work
at CCA, that sexual activity between corrections officers and those confined to
such facilities is regrettably too common. All of us involved in corrections

7