Rodgers v. Martin et al

Filing 72

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Defendants' Objections To Production Of Training Materials (ECF No. 60 ), Seven (7) Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/11/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

SYNRICO RODGERS,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.
C. C. MARTIN, et al.,
Defendants.

1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO
PRODUCTION OF TRAINING MATERIALS
(ECF No. 60)
SEVEN (7) DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20
21

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

22

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights

23

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) The action proceeds against

24

Defendants Martin and Blattel on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation and Eighth

25

Amendment deliberate indifference claims. (ECF Nos. 9 & 11.)

26
27

On August 29, 2014, the Court partially granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel and
ordered Defendants to produce, inter alia, training materials on use of force pertaining to

28
1

1

use of pepper spray and prisoner decontamination. (ECF No. 52). The Court permitted

2

Defendants to file the materials in camera “to the extent Defendants in good faith

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

believe[d] and represent[ed] to the Court” that discovery of the materials would threaten
“institutional safety and security.” (ECF No. 52). On October 2, 2014, Defendant filed
objections to producing the materials “because they are confidential and their relevance
is greatly outweighed against [sic] the dangers to safety and security if disclosed to
Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 60). Defendants filed excerpts of the training manual that related to
pepper-spray decontamination as an exhibit to their objections, and asserted that they
had “lodged the training material as limited by Order with the Court for in camera
inspection.” (ECF No. 60). However, the docket does not reflect that any such materials
were lodged with the Court.
DISCUSSION
Defendants were ordered to provide to Plaintiff training materials on use of force

13
and prisoner decontamination within twenty days of the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's
14
motion to compel. (ECF No. 52). To the extent Defendants were able to articulate
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

specific institutional safety concerns relating to these materials, they were invited to
present the documents to the Court within twenty days for in camera inspection and a
determination of which, if any, of the documents would be produced.
They have not done so. Although Defendants state that they have lodged the
training materials with the Court, they have not. In fact, they have filed in the public
record only those materials relating to prisoner decontamination which they have
determined should be revealed to Plaintiff. They have not produced, for in camera
inspection or otherwise, the training materials on use of pepper spray. Absent these
documents, the Court is unable to grant Defendants' objections.
Accordingly, Defendants' objections will be denied without prejudice to

25

Defendants renewing their motion and lodging the documents for in camera review

26

within seven days of the date of this order. If Defendants choose not to renew their

27

objections within seven days, they are required to comply in full with the Court’s order on

28
2

1
2
3

Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 52.)
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ objections are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated:

February 11, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3