Robinson v. Adams, et al.

Filing 201

ORDER RE: Production of Documents Following In Camera Review THIRTY DAY DEADLINE, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/20/13. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
D. G. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:08-cv-001380-AWI-BAM PC
ORDER RE: PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

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

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the complaint against

19

Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez and Masiel for use of excessive force

20

in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failure to protect in

21

violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda and Garcia for

22

assault and battery in violation of state law.

23

On May 17, 2013, the Court issued an order related to an in camera review of documents

24

submitted by Defendant Jesse Martinez. At that time, the Court informed the parties of its intended

25

ruling to order that the documents regarding Defendant Martinez’s reprimand for unnecessary use of

26

force in 2008 be produced with all personal information, other than employee names and/or inmate

27

names, redacted. The Court’s intended ruling was issued to allow Defendants sufficient time to

28

request a protective order and to notify any inmates that their information would be provided to
1

1

Plaintiff pursuant to this Court’s order. The Court granted Defendants thirty days in which to apply

2

for further protective order relating to these documents. (ECF No. 175.) Defendants did not apply for

3

a further protective order.

4

On November 6, 2013, the Court directed Defendants to submit a status report regarding the

5

production of documents encompassed by the Court’s intended ruling, including whether the relevant

6

documents had been produced or whether a further order of this Court was required. (ECF No. 196.)

7

Defendants filed a response to the Court’s order on November 18, 2013. Defendants indicated that

8

they cannot produce the documents that were provided to the Court for in camera review without an

9

order from the Court explicitly requiring them to do so and, thus, the documents have not been

10

produced. (ECF No. 200.)

11

Based on Defendants’ response and the Court’s intended ruling issued on May 17, 2013, it is

12

HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall produce the documents submitted for in camera review

13

regarding Defendant Martinez’s reprimand for unnecessary use of force in 2008 with all personal

14

information, other than employee names and/or inmate names, redacted within thirty (30) days of the

15

date of this order.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 20, 2013

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2