Kinney v. Brazelton, et al.

Filing 111

ORDER APPROVING Additional Redactions signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/28/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIJON KINNEY, 12 13 14 15 CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER APPROVING ADDITIONAL REDACTIONS v. (ECF NO. 101) S. FLORES, Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and with counsel in this 19 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 20 Defendant Flores on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims. The matter is before the 21 Court on a discovery dispute between the parties. 22 Following a January 13, 2017 conference, the Court ordered that certain 23 documents be produced to Plaintiff’s counsel, some of them pursuant to a protective 24 order. (ECF No. 97.) The Court specified permissible redactions to those documents. 25 Defendant sought to redact additional material. (ECF No. 101.) The request was granted 26 in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 109.) In addition, the Court reserved its ruling on 27 28 1 some of the requested redactions pending Defendant’s submission of same for in 2 camera review. (Id.) 3 On February 27, 2017, Defendant submitted his proposed additional redactions, 4 along with an index of the proposed redactions for the Court’s review. (See ECF No. 5 110.) 6 The Court finds that Defendant’s additional proposed redactions seek to remove 7 references that would reflect whether non-parties were considered co-subjects of the 8 investigation by the Office of Investigative Affairs as well as information regarding these 9 individuals’ rights in relation to their OIA interviews. The Court finds that the redactions 10 are both minimal and unrelated to any matter of relevance to this action. Accordingly, the 11 redactions are HEREBY APPROVED, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to move the 12 Court to release such information upon a showing of good cause for same. 13 Defendant’s obligation to provide the redacted materials to Plaintiff remains 14 stayed pending the District Judge’s ruling on Defendant’s objections. (See ECF No. 15 105.) 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 28, 2017 /s/ 19 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?