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)
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?