Martinez v. Allison et al

Filing 62

ORDER Granting Defendants' 59 Motion to File Redacted Documents and File the Reference List under Seal signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 07/08/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00293 LJO DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO FILE REDACTED
DOCUMENTS AND FILE THE REFERENCE
LIST UNDER SEAL

ALLISON, et al.,
(Document 59)

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Ronald Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against

19

(1) Defendants Vasquez, T. Wan, C. Moreno, R. Tolsen, B. Peterson, Clark, Allison, R. Diaz, S.

20

Sherman, and Does 1 through 10 for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment

21

for deprivation of exercise; and (2) Defendants Vasquez, Moreno, Tolsen, Peterson, Clark, Allison,

22

Diaz, Sherman, A. Hernandez, Gomez, and Does 1 through 10 for violation of the Equal Protection

23

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

24

On July 1, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to allow them to file two redacted documents in

25

support of their motion for summary judgment. Defendants also request that the Court allow them to

26

file a reference list, which identifies each item of redacted information, under seal. The Court finds

27

that no opposition is necessary and deems the matter suitable for decision.

28
1

1

DISCUSSION

2

Under Local Rule 140(b), parties are not permitted to file redacted documents “unless the

3

Court has authorized the redaction.” When redactions have been authorized, a reference list that

4

identifies each item of redacted information and specifies an appropriate identifier that uniquely

5

corresponds to each item of redacted information listed. The reference list must be filed under seal.

6

Local Rule 140(c).

7

Although courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records, including

8

judicial document, the right is not absolute. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

9

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “The factors relevant to a determination of whether the strong

10

presumption of access is overcome include the ‘public interest in understanding the judicial process

11

and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or

12

libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.’” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434

13

(9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). “After taking all relevant factors into consideration, the district

14

court must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling,

15

without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id.

16

Plaintiff’s allegations arise from a set of riots in June 2009 at the California Substance Abuse

17

Treatment Facility (“SATF”) and the resulting modified program. In the months that followed the

18

riots, correctional staff conducted a massive investigation, seeking information into the causes of the

19

riots and whether the potential for additional violence existed. Vasquez Decl. ¶ 3, July 1, 2013, ECF

20

No. 59-1. In August 2010, Captain Vasquez prepared a memorandum for Warden Allison that

21

itemized all significant events taken and learned by SATF correctional staff with respect to the

22

modified program, from June 2009 until August 6, 2012. This memorandum contains approximately

23

151 entries. Vasquez Decl. ¶ 7. Captain Vasquez prepared an updated memorandum for Warden

24

Allison in 2011 that itemized all significant events from August 6, 2010, to April 3, 2011. This

25

second memorandum contains approximately 111 separate entries. Vasquez Decl. ¶ 8.

26

Defendants believe that these two memoranda are critical to defending against Plaintiff’s

27

Eight Amendment claims because they show the information upon which Warden Allison and her

28

staff acted in making decisions concerning the modified program, and that no deliberate indifference
2

1

was involved. Vasquez Decl. ¶ 9. However, Defendants state that “a handful of entries” contain

2

highly sensitive information that could endanger numerous California inmates and CDCR staff.

3

Vasquez Decl. ¶ 10.

4

Having considered Defendants’ arguments and Captain Vasquez’s Declaration, the Court

5

finds that Defendants’ motion to file the two memoranda in redacted form should be GRANTED.

6

The entries at issue identify inmates by name and CDCR number, reveal investigative techniques,

7

reveal information learned from confidential informants, and/or contain inflammatory language that

8

could, if revealed, increase tensions between rival prison gangs. Vasquez Decl. ¶ 10.

9
10
11
12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants will be allowed to file the August 6, 2010, and the April 3, 2011, memoranda

from F. Vasquez to K. Allison in redacted form; and
2.

Defendants will be allowed to file a reference list that identifies each item of redacted

13

information and that specifies an identifier that uniquely corresponds to each item of redacted

14

information listed. The reference list must be filed under seal.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

18

DEAC_Signature-END:

19

/s/ Dennis

July 8, 2013

3b142a

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3