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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?