Robinson v. Adams, et al.

Filing 121

ORDER Re In Camera Review, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/31/11. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

10

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-SMS PC

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW

11
12

v.
D. ADAMS, et al.,

13

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

16

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 27, 2011, an order issued granting in part and

17

denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 109.) In the order Defendants were ordered

18

to produce documents that they claimed were entitled to protection or where disclosure would

19

jeopardize the security and safety of the institution to the Court for in camera review. Pursuant to

20

the order granting in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendants have submitted documents for

21

in camera review.

22

The undersigned has reviewed the documents submitted and has considered Defendants

23

argument that the documents are entitled to protection and request for thirty days to notify named

24

inmates if any personal information is ordered produced as required by California Civil Code Section

25

1798.24.1 While Defendants objected that the documents are entitled to protection, a motion for a

26
27
28

1
“No agency may disclose any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed
to the individual to whom it pertains unless the information is disclosed as follows: . . . To any person pursuant to a
subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process if, before the disclosure, the agency reasonably attempts to
notify the individual to whom the record pertains, and if the notification is not prohibited by law . . . .” Cal. Civ.

1

1

protective order has not been filed with the Court. By this order the Court is providing the parties

2

with the findings and intended final rulings. The Court will allow the parties thirty days in which

3

to file a motion for a protective order and proposed protective order if one is desired. Additionally

4

this will allow Defendants the thirty days requested to notify inmates that their information shall be

5

provided to Plaintiff.

6

Employee Training Records

7

The Court finds that the records do not contain information that would jeopardize the safety

8

or security of the institution. These records may contain some personal information that is entitled

9

to protection, therefore the Court intends to order the employee training records to be produced with

10

any indicia of personal information, other than the employee name, redacted.

11

Personnel Records

12

The personnel records that have been submitted for in camera review contain some relevant

13

and some irrelevant records. Included with the records produced are leave records. The leave

14

records are irrelevant and will not be ordered to be produced. However, the remaining records are

15

potentially relevant. The Court intends to order the personnel records to be produced, with any

16

indicia of personal information, other than the employee name, redacted.

17

Incident Report Package Tracking Log

18

In the order previously issued Defendants were ordered to produce “any and all information

19

regarding allegations of the use of unreasonable or excessive force between January 22, 2005 and

20

January 22, 2009, as to any prisoner complainant, for each defendant in this action.” (Order

21

Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 18:27-19:1, ECF No. 109.) The

22

Court finds that the incidents documented in the 2009 Incident Report Tracking Log, which occurred

23

two or more years after the incident alleged in this action are too remote to be relevant. Accordingly,

24

the 2009 Incident Report shall not be ordered produced.

25

///

26
27
28

Code § 1798.24(k). Personal information is defined as “any information that is maintained by an agency that
identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, his or her name, social security number, physical
description . . . .” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.3

2

1

Use of Force Video/Use of Force Policy

2

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to review of the Use of Force Video and Use of Force

3

Policy. However, due to the safety and security concerns of the institution these items will not be

4

produced directly to Plaintiff. The Use of Force Video and Use of Force Policy shall be produced

5

and kept in the care of custody of the institutions Litigation Coordinator. The Litigation Coordinator

6

shall make arrangements for Plaintiff to have a reasonable amount of time to view the video and Use

7

of Force policy in the presence of the Litigation Coordinator. Plaintiff may take notes of relevant

8

portions of the Use of Force Policy, but no copy of the policy shall be provided to Plaintiff.

9

Title 15

10

To the extent that California Code of Regulations, Title 15 addresses the use of force in the

11

prison, the regulations should be available to Plaintiff in the law library and the document will not

12

be ordered to be produced.

13

Appeal Records

14

The Court intends to provide a summary of the appeal inquiries from December 22, 2005

15

through January 22, 2009, to Plaintiff. The summary shall include the defendant and inmate

16

involved, date of appeal, substance of complaint, and conclusion. By this notice the Court is

17

providing Defendants with thirty days to inform the inmates involved that this information shall be

18

provided to Plaintiff.

19
20

Accordingly it is HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are granted thirty days in which to
file a motion for a protective order and proposed protective order.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:
icido3

August 31, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
3