Norwood v. Hubbard

Filing 131

ORDER re 130 Motion, signed by Senior Judge Stephen M. McNamee on 5/18/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Kenneth Wilson Norwood,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

vs.
Suzan Hubbard, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:07-CV-00889-SMM
ORDER

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Court to send Plaintiff a “Courtesy
Copy” of the Within Reply and Exhibits A-D (Doc. 130). Pursuant to a subpoena issued by
this Court on December 22, 2010, third-party California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) was required to produce internal affairs investigative reports (“the
Reports”) regarding the incident at issue in this case. Asserting that the Reports were
privileged and protected, CDCR responded to the subpoena with a Motion to Quash or, in
the Alternative, for an In Camera Review of the Information Requested (Doc. 115). The
Court denied the Motion to Quash, but granted the request for an in camera review (Doc.
128). The Court allowed the parties to file specific claims and objections to privilege by
April 15, 2011.
Plaintiff filed this Motion April 13, 2011. It is unclear the exact relief Plaintiff
requests. Plaintiff asserts that he completed a memorandum showing that CDCR’s claims of
privilege over the Reports are invalid by the April 15 deadline, but that he is unable to file
his objections because Pleasant Valley State Prison, his current residence, is on lock-down.
Therefore, he “seeks a copy for responds [sic] purposes are [sic] appeal purposes just to be

1

safe” (Doc. 130).

2

Defendant shows good cause for an extension to the filing deadline for his objections.

3

Therefore, the Court will allow Defendant to file his objections by May 25, 2011. As the

4

Court cannot decipher what other relief the Motion requests, it will deny the Plaintiff’s

5

Motion without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile his Motion clearly stating the relief he

6

requests.

7
8
9
10
11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file any objections to CDCR’s
assertions of privilege by May 25, 2011.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rest of Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED without
prejudice.
DATED this 18th day of May, 2011.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-