Bosley v. Valasco et al

Filing 67

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 52 Motion to Compel and DENYING as MOOT 64 Motion for Protective Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 05/11/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT DEWAYNE BOSLEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00049-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

M. VALASCO, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 40, 52, 64)
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the undersigned
pursuant to the consent of the parties. (ECF Nos. 4, 26.)
On April 28, 2016, the undersigned granted in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel
release of Defendant’s personnel file after having overruled Defendant’s privacy and
official information privilege objections. (ECF Nos. 40, 52.) Pursuant to that Order,
Defendant was directed to submit an unredacted copy of his personnel file for in camera
review. Defendant timely submitted the personnel file and now moves for a protective
order regarding the release of the file. (ECF No. 64.)
The Court's in camera review of the documents falling within the scope of
Plaintiff's request for production reveals only one matter having any conceivable
relevance to the issues in this case, namely a complaint about the behavior of

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Defendant Valasco toward another inmate in custody. The complaint contains an
allegation, related by the inmate's mother, that Defendant was "verbally abusive" toward
the inmate in 2013. This complaint was the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation.
The investigation resulted in a finding that the charges were not substantiated.
The Court concludes that while the said 2013 complaint has some potential
relevance to the issues raised in the instant complaint, any attempt to introduce
evidence pertaining thereto would necessitate a trial within a trial to enable the trier-offact to determine, first, whether there was any merit to the 2013 complaint and, if so,
whether it had any potential relevance to the issues in this case. The Court concludes
that any possible probative value of evidence relating to this old complaint would be far
outweighed by the probability that its introduction would confuse the issues, possibly
prejudice the Defendant, mislead the jury, and cause undue delay and waste of time; as
such, any such evidence would be excluded in accordance with Federal Rule of
Evidence 403.
Given this ruling and the absence of any other records with any potential
relevance to this case, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for production of the
requested records.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court’s April 28, 2016, Order granting in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel

20

(ECF No. 52) is modified as follows: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED in

21

its entirety, and Defendant will not be compelled to produce any documents

22
23

included in his personnel file; and
2. Defendant’s May 3, 2016, motion for protective order (ECF No. 64) is

24

DENIED as moot.
25 IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27

Dated:

May 11, 2016

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
2

1

3.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3