Robinson v. Adams, et al.

Filing 130

ORDER Addressing Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification and Denying Motion for Modification of Order Re In Camera Review 124 ; ORDER Granting Defendnats' Motion for a Protective Order 125 , 127 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/15/12. 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

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC
ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION AND DENYING
MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER RE
IN CAMERA REVIEW

v.
D. ADAMS, et al.,

(ECF No. 124)
13

Defendants.

14

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

15

(ECF No. 125, 127)

16

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
/

17
18

I.

Background

19

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

20

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the Complaint filed May

21

13, 2008, against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez, and Masiel for use

22

of excessive force, and Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failing to protect Plaintiff in violation of the

23

Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda, and Garcia for assault and

24

battery; and against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez, and Masiel for

25

intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence in violation of state law. On May 18,

26

2011, the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii issued an Order Vacating the Order Partially Granting

27

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and referred the Motion to Compel back to the Magistrate Judge for

28

consideration. (ECF No. 108). On May 27, 2011, an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
1

1

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel issued. (ECF No. 109.) On July 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

2

Reconsideration. (ECF No. 113.) On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Motion for

3

Reconsideration, and on July 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Second Supplemental Motion for

4

Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order.1 (ECF Nos. 113, 115, 116.) On September 1,

5

2011, the Magistrate Judge conducted an in camera review as discussed in the May 27, 2011 order.

6

The Magistrate Judge determined that certain documents were entitled to a protective order, and an

7

order issued directing Defendants to file a motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 121.) On

8

September 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification and Modification of the September 1,

9

2011 order. (ECF No. 124.) Defendants filed a Motion for a Protective Order on October 3, 2011.

10

(ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion for a Protective Order on October 20,

11

2011. (ECF No. 127.)

12

II.

Discussion

13

The Magistrate Judge conducted an in camera review of the documents which Defendants

14

claimed are entitled to protection due to the confidentiality of the information or due to the threat to

15

the security and safety of the institution. Pursuant to this review, the Court issued an order informing

16

the parties of the intended rulings and granted Defendants thirty days in which to file a motion for

17

a protective order and proposed protective order.

18

A.

19

Plaintiff moves for clarification and modification of the order re in camera review of

20

documents issued September 1, 2011. Plaintiff states that he was not provided with a list of

21

documents that were reviewed and it is unclear whether any documents were produced regarding

22

request for production nos. 26 and 28. Plaintiff requests that all documents that were reviewed by

23

the Court be produced. Plaintiff moves that he be allowed to contact the inmates involved in prior

24

incidents and provides a letter and form declaration to be sent to each inmate.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and Modification of Order

25

In the Court’s in camera review, the Court reviewed the documents produced by defendants

26

and determined which documents are relevant to this action. Plaintiff’s request for all documents

27
28

1

The motions for reconsideration are currently pending decision by the District Judge.

2

1

to be produced is denied, only relevant documents shall be ordered to be produced.. Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

26(b)(1). Upon production of the documents in compliance with this order, Defendants shall identify

3

the document requests for which the documents are responsive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i).

4

Plaintiff’s request to have his letter and form declaration sent to all inmates identified in the

5

documents must be denied because he has not provided evidence that he completed the process to

6

obtain written authorization from the appropriate prison officials. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3139

7

(2010). Further, because the Court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than

8

Plaintiff and Defendants, the Court can only make a request to prison officials and cannot order them

9

to allow Plaintiff to correspond with his witnesses. E.g., City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. at 102;

10

Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471. Such a request shall not be made by the Court without

11

assurances that Plaintiff has followed procedures and used the available resources at the prison to

12

obtain written authorization after consideration by prison officials of safety, security, and procedural

13

priorities. The Court recognizes that prison administrators "should be accorded wide-ranging

14

deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed

15

to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." Whitley v. Albers,

16

475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970).

17

B.

18

Defendants move for a Protective Order for employee personnel records, appeals records for

19

inmates, and internal use of force policies that were in effect at times material to the issues raised

20

in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order 2, ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff

21

opposes the Protective Order on the grounds that Defendants did not meet and confer as required in

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1),2 the Order is vague and ambiguous, and there is no need

23

for a protective order. (Plaintiff’s Opp. 1, ECF No. 127.) Plaintiff proposes that he be granted single

24

cell status while the documents are in his possession to ensure that no other inmate have access to

25

the documents.

26

Motion for Protective Order

“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,

27
2

28

In the discovery and scheduling order issued August 20, 2009, the parties were informed that the
requirements of Rule 26, that the parties meet and confer, shall not apply in this action. (ECF No. 35.)

3

1

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The court has

2

broad discretion to decide when it is appropriate to issue a protective order and the degree of

3

protection required. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211

4

(9th Cir. 2002). Upon review of the documents provided by Defendants, the Court finds two

5

categories of information that need to be addressed: the training records and personnel records

6

containing confidential personal information, and those documents containing information that

7

implicates the safety and security of the institution.

8

Certain information will be redacted from the training and personnel records. The personal

9

identifying information, such as Social Security Numbers, date of birth, address, etc. of individuals,

10

is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this action, and this information can be redacted without

11

affecting the substance of the information included in the documents. Therefore, given the privacy

12

and security concerns of this information and the lack of probative value, Social Security Numbers

13

and other confidential personal information of CDCR employees shall be redacted prior to

14

documents being provided to Plaintiff. The redacted training and personnel records are not subject

15

to the limitations in the Protective Order and shall be produced directly to Plaintiff.

16

The second category of documents will be subject to a protective order. Defendants argue

17

that the Use of Force Policy is confidential due to the safety and security concerns of the institution,

18

and a Protective Order is necessary to protect the staff and inmates who work and live in the SHU.

19

The defendants provided the “Use of Force Instructor’s Guide” for in camera review in response to

20

Plaintiff’s Request for Production. Rather than setting forth the Use of Force Policy, the document

21

is a training manual and discusses how to respond to different situations that could confront a

22

correctional officer within the Use of Force Policy. The Court has reviewed the document and finds

23

that the probative value of the Instructor’s Guide is greatly outweighed by the security risk to the

24

institution if this information were disclosed to the inmate population. Therefore, the Court finds

25

that good cause exists to issue a Protective Order for the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide. Since the

26

allegations in this action do not involve the use of deadly force or mechanical restraints, those

27

portions of the document that deal with use of deadly force and mechanical restraints are not relevant

28

and will not be ordered produced. Finally, in weighing the limited probative value of the Use of
4

1

Force Training Video against the safety and security concerns of the prison, the Court finds that the

2

potentially relevant information is encompassed in the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, and the

3

Training Video shall not be ordered produced. Based upon these findings, Defendants shall be

4

ordered to produce the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, up to and including Objective 6 on page 27,

5

and the Use of Force Policy Test Question Nos. 1 through 6, subject to the Protective Order.

6

Plaintiff argues that the Protective Order is unnecessary and proposes that he be granted

7

single cell status to avoid a cellmate having access to the documents. Plaintiff argues he will agree

8

not to copy or show the documents to non-witness inmates. While Plaintiff states he will agree not

9

to copy the documents or allow any other inmate to see them unless they are a witness in this action,

10

these conditions do not show that the Protective Order is unnecessary, but indicate Plaintiff’s

11

willingness to stipulate to a protective order.

12

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief directing him to be single cell status in

13

order to have the documents in his possession, the Prison Litigation Reform Act places limitations

14

on injunctive relief. Section 3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part, “[p]rospective relief in any civil

15

action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation

16

of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any

17

prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than

18

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to

19

correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The relief requested by

20

Plaintiff is not related to the underlying claims that Defendants used excessive force and failed to

21

protect him. Since the relief sought would not remedy the violation of the Federal right at issue here,

22

the Court cannot grant the requested relief.

23

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Protective Order is vague and ambiguous as to a reasonable

24

amount of time for him to review the documents. To address Plaintiff’s concern regarding “a

25

reasonable amount of time,” the Court shall order that Plaintiff be allowed one hour to review the

26

portion of the Use of Force Policy Instructor’s Guide that has been ordered to be produced and take

27

notes. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is granted and the protective order shall issue as follows.

28

///
5

1

C.

2

Defendants shall produce the confidential material, subject to this Protective Order on the

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Protective Order

following conditions:
1. The Social Security Numbers and any other confidential personal information of the
CDCR employees shall be redacted.
2. Prior notice as required by Civil Code section 1798.24 (k) shall be given to individuals
whose names or other identifying information are disclosed in the material.
3. The Use of Force Instructor’s Guide may be submitted to the possession of the following
persons:

10

(a) The Litigation Coordinator at the institution where Plaintiff is now housed;

11

(b) Counsel for Plaintiff in this action, should Plaintiff acquire counsel;

12

(c) Paralegal, stenographic, clerical and secretarial personnel regularly employed by

13

counsel for Plaintiff;

14
15

(d) Court personnel and stenographic reporters engaged in such proceedings as are
incidental to the preparation for the trial in this action;

16
17

(e) Any outside expert or consultant retained by Plaintiffs’ counsel for purposes of
this action;

18

(f) Witnesses to whom the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide may be disclosed during

19

the preparation for trial and trial, provided that no witness may have copies of the Use of Force

20

Instructor’s Guide or Plaintiff’s notes regarding the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, and each

21

witness shall be informed and agree to be bound by the terms of this order.

22

4. Plaintiff will be allowed to review the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, but he may not

23

retain the document in his possession. Plaintiff shall be allowed one hour to review the Use of Force

24

Instructor’s Guide in the Litigation Coordinator’s presence and take notes. In addition, Plaintiff may

25

not disclose to or discuss this material with any other inmate, nor may any other inmate review or

26

have possession of, any material produced pursuant to the Court’s Order or Plaintiff’s notes

27

regarding the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide. Counsel for the Defendants acknowledges that such

28

access would constitute a violation of Title 15, California Code of Regulations, § 3370(b) and would
6

1

compromise the safety and security of the institution.

2

5. Plaintiff may take notes, but shall not make copies of the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide.

3

6. All confidential material in possession of the Litigation Coordinator shall be destroyed

4

or returned to the Defendants’ counsel no later than twenty days after trial of this matter, or sooner

5

if the Litigation Coordinator concludes the material is no longer needed for Plaintiff’s review.

6

7. Upon final judgment or resolution of any appeal, Plaintiff or his counsel shall return or

7

destroy the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide or notes on the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, and shall

8

provide Defendants’ counsel with a declaration stating all confidential material has been returned

9

or destroyed.

10

8. No confidential material obtained by Plaintiff or his counsel shall be disclosed except as

11

is necessary in connection with this or related litigation, including appeals, and not for any other

12

purpose, including any other litigation.

13
14

9. Any confidential material filed with the Court by either party shall be filed and maintained
under seal.

15

10. Any violation of this Protective Order may be punishable as Contempt of Court.

16

11. Nothing in this Protective Order is intended to prevent officials or employees of the State

17

of California, or other authorized government officials, from having access to confidential material

18

to which they would have access in the normal course of their official duties.

19

12. The provisions of this Protective Order are without prejudice to the right of any party:

20

(a) To apply to the Court for a further protective order relating to any confidential

21

material or relating to discovery in this litigation;

22
23

(b) To apply to the Court for an order removing the confidential material designation
from any documents;

24

(c) To object to a discovery request.

25

12. The provisions of this order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of

26

this Court.

27

///

28

///
7

1

III.

Order

2

Accordingly it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4

Plaintiff’s Motion for Modification of the Order Re In Camera Review, filed
September 15, 2011, is DENIED;

5

2.

Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order, filed October 3, 2011, is GRANTED;

6

3.

The proposed orders set forth in the Order Re In Camera Review of the documents

7

filed under seal for in camera review, issued September 1, 2011, are adopted as

8

follows:

9

a.

The employee use of force training records, Attachment 1, are to be produced

10

with any indicia of personal information, other than the employee name,

11

redacted;

12

b.

With the exception of the WOTS Rainbow Report, the personnel records,

13

Attachment 2, are to be produced with any indicia of personal information,

14

other than the employee name, redacted;

15

c.

16
17

Defendants shall not produce a copy of the appeal inquiries, Attachment 3.
A summary of the appeal inquires is attached herein as Exhibit A;

d.

The Incident Report Package Tracking Log, Attachment 4, shall not be

18

produced as it is too remote to the alleged incidents to be relevant in this

19

action;

20

e.

The Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, up to and including Objective 6 on page

21

27, and the Use of Force Policy Test Question Nos. 1 through 6 shall be

22

produced, subject to the Protective Order, and kept in the care of custody of

23

the institution’s Litigation Coordinator. The Litigation Coordinator shall

24

make arrangements for Plaintiff to have one hour to review the Use of Force

25

Policy and Test Questions, in the presence of the Litigation Coordinator.

26

Plaintiff may take notes of relevant portions of the Use of Force Instructor’s

27

Guide and Test Questions, but no copy of the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide

28

or Test Questions shall be provided to Plaintiff;
8

1

f.

2

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, is equally accessible to Plaintiff and
need not be produced; and

3

4.

4

Defendants shall identify the document requests for which the documents are
responsive.

5

5.

6

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall produce
documents responsive to this order.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated:

March 15, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9

EXHIBIT A
Inmate Appeals from January 22, 2005 through January 22, 2009
Defendant Named
Date of
Inmate, CDCR #
Appeal/Incident

Complaint

Conclusion

David and M. Melo

05/15/2005

Bachman

Assault/threats

Not Sustained

R. Miranda

04/04/2005

Blakes

Rough body search

Not Sustained

David

04/23/2005

Vergara, P-18218

Unnecessary force

Not Sustained

Ruiz

06/06/2005

Perry, K-99205

Assault

Not Sustained

David and Miranda

12/14/2005

Garcia, T-88303

Unnecessary force

Not Sustained

David, Masiel, and Mendoza

05/23/2006

Lamon, E-08345

Assault

Not Sustained

M. Melo and Mendoza

08/08/2006

Fisher, H-54073

Threats/retaliation

Not Sustained

Ruiz

01/27/2007

Estrada, T-42165

Assault

Not Sustained

David, M. Melo, and Mendoza

03/19/2007

Malbrue, P-89050

Aggressive use of handcuffs;
released inmate causing him
to fall; pepper spray

Not Sustained

M. Melo

06/29/2007

Rogers, P-75155

Aggressive use of handcuffs

Not Sustained

David and Miranda

10/05/2007

Mitchell, T-74082

Assault

Not Sustained

M. Melo

04/22/2008

Thompson, T-14323

Removed wheelchair causing
fall

Not Sustained

David

07/21/2008

Taylor, C-05467

Pepper spray

Not Sustained

M. Melo

01/05/2009

Gherardi, K-78141

Assault

Not Sustained

M. Melo

01/14/2009

Beltran, E-54239

Assault; pepper spray

Not Sustained

10