Kinney v. Brazelton, et al.

Filing 109

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 101 Request for Additional Redactions signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/21/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DIJON KINNEY,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART REQUEST
FOR ADDITIONAL REDACTIONS

v.
(ECF NO. 101)
S. FLORES,

14

Defendant.

15
16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and with counsel in this

18

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

19

Defendant Flores on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims.

20

I.

Procedural History

21

On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the following discovery: his

22

own deposition transcript, the final dispositions of investigations performed by the

23

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Office of the Inspector

24

General, video footage of the incident, and photographs taken by medical staff. (ECF

25

No. 51) On May 27, 2016, the Court set the matter for a telephonic discovery dispute

26

conference and ordered Defendants to submit specified documents for in camera review.

27

(ECF No. 56.)

28

1

Defendant filed objections to the order (ECF No. 62), which were overruled (ECF

2

No. 71). Defendant ultimately submitted the specified documents for in camera review on

3

January 3 and January 5, 2017. He also submitted a statement of objections to the

4

release of said documents to Plaintiff, a privilege log, and a proposed protective order

5

(ECF Nos. 92- 93).

6

Following a January 13, 2017 conference, the Court ordered that certain

7

documents be produced to Plaintiff’s counsel, some of them pursuant to a protective

8

order. (ECF No. 97.) The Court specified limited permissible redactions to those

9

documents. Defendant now seeks to redact additional material. (ECF No. 101.) Plaintiff

10

filed a response. (ECF No. 108.) Defendant filed no reply.

11

II.

Discussion

12

A.

Subjects of Investigation

13

Defendants first seek to redact “[a]ny reference in the OIA Investigative Report to

14

who the subjects of the OIA Investigation were, including any reference to any notice of

15

rights that would identify the purpose or type of interview.” The Court agrees that the

16

issue of whether correctional personnel other than Defendant were the subject of an OIA

17

Investigation is not, in itself, directly relevant to this action. Thus, Defendant may redact

18

all references to any notice of rights, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to move the

19

Court to release such information upon a showing of good cause for same.

20

To the extent Defendant wishes to redact additional references that would identify

21

the subjects of the investigation, he must first submit to the Court, in camera, a copy of

22

the OIA Investigation Report containing the proposed redactions. Additionally, Defendant

23

must submit an index identifying each page containing the proposed redactions, and the

24

line number or approximate line number of the proposed redactions. Such submission

25

shall

26

[e-mail]. The Court will review the proposed redactions to ensure

be

made

within

five

days

27
28
2

of

the

date

of

this

order

to

1

that they do not redact relevant and otherwise discoverable information and advise the

2

parties of the results of its review before releasing the information.

3

B.

4

Defendant next seeks to redact “[t]he entire Section of the OIA Investigative

5

Report entitled ‘Statement of Facts from Investigation.’” Defendant argues that this

6

summary of facts, compiled by a third party investigator, cannot in itself be used to

7

impeach any witness to the acts at issue in this case. Additionally, it is cumulative of

8

other information contained in the OIA report, information which already serves to

9

identify potential witnesses. Finally, “it represents the investigator’s selection of facts he

10

Statement of Facts

found significant.”

11

Plaintiff responds it would be “entirely inappropriate” to redact the entire

12

Statement of Facts, “which the court found to be relevant and which at least seems likely

13

to contain information that is potentially useful to plaintiff’s case.”

14

The Court notes that the Statement of Facts does not contain investigative

15

findings or conclusions. It is merely a listing of facts, derived from the investigation, that

16

the investigator found relevant to the specific allegation of misconduct against the

17

Defendant in this action. While the Statement itself likely is inadmissible, it nonetheless

18

may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and therefore is a proper subject of

19

discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court reiterates its prior determination that the

20

report contains highly relevant information bearing directly on the incident at issue and

21

potential liability therefore. The Court concludes that the balance of interests tips in favor

22

of requiring Defendant to disclose the Statement of Facts pursuant to the protective

23

order.

24

III.

25
26
27

Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant’s request for additional redactions (ECF No. 101) is GRANTED
IN PART as follows:

28
3

1

a. Defendant may redact from the OIA Report all references to any

2

notice of rights.

3

b. To the extent Defendant wishes to redact further material identifying

4

the subjects of the investigation, he must submit his proposed

5

redactions to the Court in camera, along with an index of the

6

proposed redactions, within five days. The Court will reserve its

7

ruling on this portion of Defendant’s request pending receipt of the

8

proposed redactions, if any.

9

2. In all other respects, the request is DENIED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 21, 2017

/s/

13

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4