Gamez v. Gonzalez, et al.

Filing 214

ORDER denying 213 Request to Seal signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/13/2016. ( Briefing Deadline: 1/22/2016). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8

SERGIO ALEJANDRO GAMEZ,

9

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL
(ECF No. 213.)

F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS TO
PROVIDE FURTHER BRIEFING:
JANUARY 22, 2016

10
11

1:08-cv-01113-EPG (PC)

vs.

12

Defendants.

13
14
15

I.

BACKGROUND

16

Sergio Alejandro Gamez (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding with this civil rights

17

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, with counsel appointed for limited purpose.1 The parties

18

to this case have voluntarily consented to have Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean conduct any

19

and all further proceedings in the case, including the trial and entry of a final judgment.2

20

This case now proceeds on the Fourth Amended Complaint filed on November 8, 2013,

21

with Plaintiff’s claims for due process violations concerning his 2010 and 2012 gang

22

validations, and related retaliation claims, against defendants K. Holland (Warden, CCI), F.

23

Gonzalez (Former Warden, CCI), J. Tyree (IGI, CCI), J. Gentry (Former IGI, CCI), G. Adame

24
25
26
27
28

1

On December 10, 2015, the Court appointed M. Greg Mullanax as counsel for Plaintiff, for the
limited purpose of assisting Plaintiff with preparing for and participating in the upcoming settlement conference.
(ECF No. 212.)
2
On May 9, 2014, defendants Gonzalez, Gentry, Holland, Tyree, Adame, and Jakabosky
consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 169.) On December 8,
2015, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge under 29 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 208.) On
December 10, 2015, this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean for all further proceedings.
(ECF No. 210.)
1

1

(Assistant IGI, CCI), and G. Jakabosky (SSU Special Agent). (ECF No. 147.) A settlement

2

conference is scheduled for February 17, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned.

3

On January 6, 2016, Defendants filed a notice of intent to file confidential documents

4

under seal for in camera review, which the Court construes as a motion to seal. (ECF No. 213.)

5

On January 7, 2016, Defendants submitted the documents to the Court which they seek to seal.

6

For the reasons described below, the Court denies the motion to seal, but will review the

7

documents in camera and return them to Defendants with an order requiring disclosure of

8

certain documents after review.

9

Specifically, Defendants have submitted two binders of documents for the Court’s in

10

camera review, together with a motion to seal all of the documents and either keep them under

11

seal for seventy-five years, or return them to Defendants without unsealing them.

12

documents were submitted by Defendants to the Court after they were compelled in the Court’s

13

order of November 9, 2015. (ECF No. 201.) That order stated that Defendants were to

14

produce documents requested by Plaintiff in his Document Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from

15

his First Request for Production of Documents dated March 19, 2015. That order stated, “If

16

Defendants believe that production of any such documents or portions of documents pose a

17

security threat or invade a privilege, they should submit those documents to the Court in

18

camera with a full explanation within thirty days of this order.” (ECF No. 201 at 5-6 ¶2.)

The

19

At the telephonic hearing on November 20, 2015, the Court reiterated the order and

20

agreed to review documents in camera. The Court repeatedly noted that the Plaintiff had due

21

process rights to balance against confidentiality and prison safety. It requested Defendants to

22

specify exactly what should be withheld and on what legal basis.

23

Instead of doing so, Defendants submitted two binders of documents and requested they

24

all be kept completely under seal for seventy-five years. Defendants did not provide any legal

25

basis or case citations for doing so, besides stating that both of the memoranda “must remain

26

confidential [because] to reveal the identity of the sources would jeopardize the inmates’ safety,

27

the safety of other inmates involved, and the security of the institution.” (ECF No. 213 at 2:18-

28

20.) The Court notes that Plaintiff must have already seen some of these documents, as some
2

1

contain his handwriting. It is thus not possibly the case that all of the documents should be

2

withheld. Yet Defendants have provided no guidance on how to determine which, or which

3

portions, should be withheld.

4

The Court thus denies Defendants’ motion to seal. The Court will retain the documents

5

and review them in camera for the purpose of determining which of them should be provided to

6

Plaintiff in full or redacted form. It will then return the documents to Defendants with an order

7

specifying which documents or portions should be produced.

8

That said, the Court again asks for briefing regarding what documents or portions of

9

documents it believes should be withheld on what legal basis. Defendants are granted until

10

January 22, 2016 to provide further briefing. Defendants’ further briefing may be filed ex parte

11

for the Court’s review, and should not include any argument regarding the merits of the case.

12

Defendants should keep in mind that a failure to provide discovery will limit

13

Defendants’ ability to use that evidence at trial. In other words, if Defendant wish to rely on

14

any evidence in their defense, they need to produce those documents or portion of such

15

documents. Here, where Defendants’ basis for gang validation is at issue, Defendants may

16

wish to use redaction and other measures to provide them in discovery in order to use them to

17

support their decisions. For these and other reasons, the Court believes that redaction and other

18

tailored measures to provide as much evidence as possible consistent with security concerns

19

will benefit all parties.

20

III.

CONCLUSION

21

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1.

Defendants’ motion to seal, filed on January 6, 2016, is DENIED; and

23

2.

Defendants are granted until January 22, 2016 to file a further briefing, as

24
25
26

discussed in this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 13, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
3