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)

Download PDF
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 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

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?