Kinney v. Brazelton, et al.

Filing 97

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/16/2017. Twenty (20) day deadline for defendant's production of documents. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DIJON KINNEY,

11

Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY

Defendant.

12
13

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS (PC)

TWENTY (20) DAY DEADLINE FOR
DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS

v.
S. FLORES,

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendant Flores

19

on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims.

20

I.

Procedural History

21

On June 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 9.) He

22

alleged that, on August 14, 2012 a riot broke out in his recreation yard. Plaintiff was not

23

involved. However, Plaintiff was one of several African-American inmates on a nearby

24

basketball court who refused to prone out on the asphalt due to the heat. As a result,

25

Plaintiff was forced by Defendant Flores to lie down/kneel down on the ground. The

26

temperature was over 100 degrees and the ground was burning hot. Plaintiff was

27
28

1

required to kneel on the ground for over ninety minutes. He thereafter requested medical

2

attention and Flores refused.

3

On July 1, 2014, the Court screened the complaint and found that it stated

4

cognizable Eighth Amendment claims. (ECF No. 10.) Flores was served and answered

5

on November 5, 2014. (ECF No. 18.) The Court issued a discovery and scheduling

6

order, setting July 7, 2015 as the discovery cut-off and September 17, 2015 as the

7

dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 20.) The discovery deadline later was extended to

8

July 21, 2015 for the sole purpose of taking Plaintiff’s deposition in Arizona. (ECF No.

9

30.)

10

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Pitchess” motion seeking materials from

11

Defendant’s personnel file. (ECF No. 31.) The motion was denied on the ground that

12

Pitchess is inapplicable in this civil proceeding and, in any event, the discovery cut-off

13

had expired. (ECF No. 32.)

14

On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a ninety day extension of the

15

discovery deadline. (ECF No. 33.) He claimed that he did not know how to file motions or

16

discovery requests, he was without legal assistance from an attorney or “jail house

17

lawyer” during the discovery period, and he is pro se and thus unfamiliar with the laws

18

and rules of the federal courts. The motion was denied for failure to show good cause or

19

that he had pursued discovery with the requisite diligence during the discovery period.

20

(ECF No. 35.)

21

On September 16, 2016, Defendant moved to modify the dispositive motion

22

deadline. (ECF No. 36.) The motion was granted and the deadline was extended to

23

October 2, 2015.

24

On October 2, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.

25

37.) On January 15, 2016, after Plaintiff already had opposed the motion for summary

26

judgment and filed his unauthorized surreply, Plaintiff moved “for a transcript of prior

27

proceedings and all discovery of evidence.” (ECF No. 46.) He sought a transcript of his

28
2

1

deposition, “material evidence,” video footage, and photographs. He did not seek to stay

2

proceedings on the motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

3

Procedure 56(d). The Court denied the motion on the ground that good cause was not

4

presented. (ECF No. 49.)

5

On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed another discovery motion. (ECF No. 51.) This

6

time, Plaintiff did seek additional time under Rule 56(d). He sought the following

7

discovery: his own deposition transcript, the final dispositions of investigations performed

8

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

9

Inspector General, video footage of the incident, and photographs taken by medical

10

staff. Defendant filed no opposition. On May 27, 2016, the Court denied the motion, once

11

again because Plaintiff failed to show he diligently pursued discovery. (ECF No. 56.)

12

Nevertheless, to facilitate the efficient resolution of discovery issues and allow

13

summary judgment and/or trial to proceed upon the consideration of all relevant

14

evidence, the Court ordered as follows:

15

1. A telephonic discovery dispute conference was set for June 21, 2016.

16

2. The parties were ordered to meet and confer prior to the conference to attempt

17

to resolve disputes regarding Plaintiff’s deposition transcript, photo evidence,

18

and video evidence.

19

3. Defendant was ordered to provide the following documents to the Court for in

20

camera review: any and all documents in Defendant's possession, custody, or

21

subject to his control relating to the investigation of the August 14, 2012

22

incident by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and/or

23

the Office of the Inspector General.

24

4. Defendant also was invited to submit a statement of objections to the release

25

of such documents to Plaintiff and a draft protective order, if deemed

26

necessary.

27
28
3

1

On June 23, 2016 Defendant filed objections to the order. (ECF No. 62.) On

2

September 23, 2016, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied. (ECF No.

3

68.) On October 19, 2016, the District Judge ruled on Defendant’s objections to the

4

discovery order. (ECF No. 71.) The District Judge found good cause for reopening

5

discovery for the limited purposes described above. He overruled Defendant’s objections

6

on procedural grounds.1

7

On November 29, 2016, the undersigned set the matter for a telephonic discovery

8

dispute conference, ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s access

9

to photographs of his injuries, and ordered Defendant to submit the above-described

10

documents for in camera review.

11

Defendant submitted the documents, videos, and audio recordings between

12

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

13

said document to Plaintiff, a privilege log, and a proposed protective order (ECF Nos.92-

14

93).

15

On January 11, 2017, counsel was appointed to represent Plaintiff. (ECF No. 96.)

16

The Court conducted it’s in camera review of the documents and discussed the

17

conclusions it drew therefrom with all parties on the record on January 13, 2017.

18

II.

Legal Standard

19

The Supreme Court has long noted that privileges are disfavored. Jaffee v.

20

Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9 (1996). “The party asserting an evidentiary privilege has the

21

burden to demonstrate that the privilege applies to the information in question.” Tornay

22

v. United States, 840 F.2d 1424, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988). Privileges are to be “strictly

23

construed” because they “impede full and free discovery of the truth.” Eureka Fin. Corp.

24

v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co., 136 F.R.D. 179, 183 (E.D. Cal. 1991). “If the privilege is

25
26
27
28

1

Defendant objected that the disputed evidence was not relevant to the motion for summary judgment; the
District Judge concluded it may be relevant for trial. Defendant objected that the evidence was confidential
and privileged; the District Judge noted that Defendant had been ordered to present these arguments to
the undersigned and did not do so. Accordingly, the District Judge declined to address them.

4

1

worth protecting, a litigant must be prepared to expend some time to justify the assertion

2

of the privilege.” Id.

3

In civil rights cases brought under section 1983, questions of privilege are

4

resolved by federal law. Kerr v. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,

5

511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975). “State privilege doctrine, whether derived from

6

statutes or court decisions, is not binding on federal courts in these kinds of cases.” Kelly

7

v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 655-56 (N.D. Cal. 1987).

8

Nevertheless, “[f]ederal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official

9

information.” Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing

10

Kerr, 511 F.2d at 198). The official information privilege ensures disclosure of

11

discoverable information without compromising the state’s interest in protecting the

12

privacy of law enforcement officials and in ensuring the efficacy of its law enforcement

13

system. Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 662-63.

14

“To determine whether the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the

15

potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the latter is

16

greater, the privilege bars discovery.” Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-34. “In the context of

17

civil rights suits against [corrections officials], this balancing approach should be

18

‘moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure.’” Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (quoting Kelly,

19

114 F.R.D. at 661).

20

The party invoking the privilege must at the outset make a “substantial threshold

21

showing” by way of a declaration or affidavit from a responsible official with personal

22

knowledge of the matters attested. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613. “The claiming official must

23

‘have seen and considered the contents of the documents and himself have formed the

24

view that on grounds of public interest they ought not to be produced’ and state with

25

specificity the rationale of the claimed privilege.” Kerr, 511 F.2d at 198 (citation omitted).

26

The affidavit must include: (1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected the

27

material in issue and has maintained its confidentiality; (2) a statement that the official

28
5

1

has personally reviewed the material in question; (3) a specific identification of the

2

governmental or privacy interests that would be threatened by disclosure of the material

3

to plaintiff and/or his lawyer; (4) a description of how disclosure subject to a carefully

4

crafted protective order would create a substantial risk of harm to significant

5

governmental or privacy interests, and (5) a projection of how much harm would be done

6

to the threatened interests if disclosure were made. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613. In addition,

7

“[t]he asserting party, as in any case where a privilege is claimed, must sufficiently

8

identify the documents so as to afford the requesting party an opportunity to challenge

9

the assertion of privilege.” Miller v. Panucci, 141 F.R.D.292, 300 (C.D. Cal. 1992).

10

III.

Discussion

11

Defendants’ privilege log contains eight Office of Internal Affairs Investigation

12

Reports and Exhibits thereto. The Exhibits include video footage and audio recordings.

13

The Court has conducted an in camera review of these materials and has considered

14

the materials under the legal standard set forth above. The Court has weighed the

15

potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages, Sanchez, 936 F.2d

16

at 1033–34, and concludes that, in the specific instances described below, the balance

17

tips rather clearly in favor of disclosure. The Court is sensitive to Defendant’s need to

18

maintain institutional safety and security. Similarly, the Court appreciates the benefit to

19

society and institutions within it of promoting thorough and accurate investigations.

20

However, these records contain highly relevant information bearing directly on the

21

incident at issue and potential liability therefore. Justice requires that the contents be

22

made available to Plaintiff for use in identifying witnesses, and in questioning, and

23

possibly impeaching, lay and expert witnesses at the trial of this case.

24

Given the foregoing, judicial preference for admitting competent, relevant

25

evidence, and recognition that the balance is “moderately pre-weighted in favor of

26

disclosure” in these cases, Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661),

27

the Court cannot justify withholding these records from Plaintiff on any basis proffered

28
6

1

by Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants will be ordered to produce to Plaintiff’s

2

counsel the documents and materials as identified below subject to the restrictions and

3

protections described herein.

4

A.

5

Defendants have submitted eight Office of Internal Affairs (“OIA”) Investigation

6

Reports concerning the incident at issue. Each report is 125 pages long and has as its

7

subject a different officer involved in the incident. Aside from brief identifying

8

information at the beginning of each report and a one sentence description of the

9

nature of the inquiry as it relates to each officer, the reports appear to be nearly

10

Office of Internal Affairs Investigation Reports

identical.

11

The Court concludes that the report pertaining to Defendant is clearly relevant to

12

Plaintiff’s claims and must be disclosed pursuant to a protective order. The seven

13

remaining reports are cumulative and need not be disclosed.

14

The Court understands Defendant’s argument that portions of Defendant’s

15

report pertaining to other officers or inmates should be redacted. Nonetheless, the

16

Court concludes that these portions of the report identify potential witnesses and

17

contain relevant information regarding the incident. Accordingly, only the following

18

redactions are permitted:

19
20

•

Redaction of introductory paragraph containing Defendant’s personal

information (full name, title, then-current location, date of birth, and hire date).

21

•

Redaction of all first names, other than first initial.

22

•

Redaction of review of inmate Butler’s medical records (pages 13-14).

23

•

Redaction of review of interview of Dr. Chokatos concerning inmate

24
25
26
27

Butler (pages 73-76).
•

Redaction of a paragraph of the interview of L. Quezada (page 83, final

paragraph) regarding confidential informants.
•

Redaction of review of inmate Fields’ medical records (page 101).

28
7

1

•

Redaction of review of inmate Venable’s medical records (page 102).

2

B.

Exhibits

3

1.

Exhibit 1: Inmate Orientation Handbook

4

This Exhibit does not contain confidential material. To the extent Plaintiff’s

5

counsel wishes to obtain it, it must be disclosed. Because it does not contain

6

confidential material, it is not subject to any protective order.

7

2.

Exhibit 2: Title 15 Regulations

8

This Exhibit does not contain confidential material. To the extent Plaintiff’s

9

counsel wishes to obtain it, it must be disclosed. Because it does not contain

10
11

confidential material, it is not subject to any protective order.
3.

Exhibit 3: Crime/Incident Report

12

This Exhibit constitutes confidential, privileged material containing sensitive

13

safety and security information. Additionally, it has no apparent relevance to the instant

14

litigation. Defendant need not disclose this Exhibit to Plaintiff or his counsel.

15

4.

Exhibit 4: Medical Reports of Injury

16

This Exhibit contains medical reports relating to Plaintiff and other inmates who

17

were allegedly injured in the incident. Information relating to participants in the riot is

18

not relevant to Plaintiff’s case and need not be disclosed. Information relating to

19

inmates allegedly burned on the pavement is relevant and must be disclosed to

20

Plaintiff’s counsel. With the exception of Plaintiff’s own records, the records will be

21

subject to the protective order.

22

5.

Exhibit 5: Health Care Services Request Forms

23

This Exhibit contains health care services request forms written by Plaintiff and

24

other inmates. Information relating to inmates allegedly burned on the pavement is

25

relevant and must be disclosed to Plaintiff’s counsel. With the exception of Plaintiff’s

26

own records, the records will be subject to the protective order.

27
28
8

1
2

6.

Exhibits 6-11: Internal Memoranda

3

These Exhibits are comprised of internal memoranda written by officers (other

4

than Defendant) who participated in the incident. They contain the officers’ first-hand

5

observations and therefore are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. They must be disclosed to

6

Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the protective order. Defendant may redact first names

7

(except first initials) and other personal identifying information.

8

7.

Exhibit 12: Internal Memorandum from Warden

9

This Exhibit contains an internal memorandum from the Warden describing the

10

incident, action and training taken as a result, and interactions with the Office of the

11

Inspector General. It is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and must be disclosed pursuant to

12

the protective order. Defendant may redact first names (with the exception of first

13

initials) and other personal identifying information.

14
15

8.
These

Exhibit 13: Emails between OIG and CDCR
email

communications

between

representatives

of

OIG

and

16

representatives of CDCR pertain to the incident and the response thereto. They are

17

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and, while potentially prejudicial to Defendant, simply do

18

not threaten privacy or security interests to a degree that would warrant their

19

withholding. They must be released to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the protective

20

order. First names (with the exception of first initials), email addresses, and other

21

personal identifying information may be redacted.

22
23
24

9.

This Exhibit contains correspondence between inmate Butler and the Prison
Law Office. It has little to no relevance to Plaintiff’s claims and need not be disclosed.

25
26
27

Exhibit 14: Inmate Correspondence

10.

Exhibit 15: Photographs

This Exhibit contains photographs that relate primarily to the riot. They need not
be disclosed.

28
9

1
2

11.

Exhibit 16: Inmate Appeals and Staff Complaints

3

This Exhibit contains inmate appeals and staff complaints filed by the involved

4

inmates, as well as the internal investigation of their complaints. These materials are

5

relevant and must be released to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the protective order. First

6

names (with the exception of first initials) and other personal identifying information may

7

be redacted.

8

12.

Exhibit 17: Surveillance Video Footage

9

Defendant submitted two discs with surveillance video footage to the Court for in

10

camera review. The first is approximately fifteen seconds long and shows the riot itself. It

11

was taken prior to the prone out order at issue in this case and does not contain relevant

12

material. It need not be disclosed.

13

The second video is approximately two minutes long. It pans the yard prior to,

14

during, and immediately after the riot. It appears to briefly pan the basketball court area

15

as the inmates began to prone out. It is relevant and must be released to Plaintiff’s

16

counsel subject to the protective order.

17

13.

Exhibit 18: Temperature Logs

18

This Exhibit contains records of the temperature in various prison locations on the

19

day of the incident. It is relevant and must be released. It does not appear to contain

20

confidential material and therefore is not subject to the protective order.

21
22
23
24

14.

Exhibits 19, 54-56, and 68-69: Inmate Butler’s Medical Records

These Exhibits contain inmate Butler’s confidential health information. The privacy
interests outweigh their relevancy, and they need not be released.
15.

Exhibit 20: Photographs of Inmate Injuries

25

If Defendant has not already done so, he must release to Plaintiff photographs of

26

Plaintiff’s own injuries. These photographs are not subject to the protective order.

27

Photographs of other inmates contained in this Exhibit must be released to Plaintiff’s

28
10

1

counsel, subject to the protective order. Defendant may redact first names, with the

2

exception of first initials.

3

16.

Exhibits 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 85: Inmate Interviews

4

These Exhibits are audio recorded interviews with the involved inmates. Plaintiff’s

5

own interview (Exhibit 31) must be released to his counsel and is not subject to the

6

protective order. The remaining interviews are summarized in Defendant’s OIA

7

Investigation Report. To the extent Plaintiff’s counsel wishes to seek release of audio

8

recorded interviews of other inmates, he must set forth a specific basis why disclosure is

9

warranted.

10

17.

Exhibits 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 86: Inmate Schematics

11

These Exhibits are comprised of yard schematics that were presented to inmates

12

during the investigation, and on which inmates were asked to mark their location at the

13

time of the incident. The schematic marked by Plaintiff (Exhibit 32) must be released to

14

Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the protective order. To the extent counsel wishes to seek

15

release of schematics marked by other inmates, he must set forth a specific basis why

16

disclosure is warranted.

17
18

18.

Exhibits 33, 35, 36, 37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 51, 53, 57, 61, 63, 67, 70,

74, 76, 78, 81, 83, 87, 89, 95, 98: Interviews of Correctional Personnel

19

These Exhibits are audio recorded interviews with various correctional personnel

20

involved in the incident or the response thereto. Defendant’s interview (Exhibit 63) must

21

be released to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the protective order. The remaining

22

interviews are summarized in Defendant’s OIA Investigation Report. To the extent

23

Plaintiff wishes to seek release of audio recorded interviews of other personnel, he must

24

set forth a specific basis why disclosure is warranted.

25
26
27
28
11

1
2

19.

Exhibits 34, 40, 42, 46, 50, 52, 60, 62, 66, 73, 75, 77, 82, 84, 88,

90: Correctional Personnel’s Schematics

3

These Exhibits are comprised of yard schematics that were presented to

4

personnel during the investigation, and on which personnel were asked to mark their

5

location at the time of the incident. The schematic marked by Defendant (Exhibit 66)

6

must be released to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the protective order. To the extent

7

Plaintiff wishes to seek release of schematics marked by other personnel, he must set

8

forth a specific basis why disclosure is warranted.

9
10
11
12

20.

100: Administrative Documents
These exhibits contain administrative documents not relevant to this action. They
need not be disclosed.

13
14
15

Exhibits 38, 39, 48, 49, 58, 59, 64, 65, 71, 72, 79, 80, 96, 97, 99,

21.

Exhibit 91: Fields Medical Records

This Exhibit contains inmate Fields’ confidential health information. The privacy
interests inherent in the records outweigh their relevancy. They need not be released.

16

22.

Exhibit 92: In Service Training Alarm Response Lesson Plan

17

This Exhibit contains two non-consecutive pages of training materials that appear

18

to largely relate to chain-of-command concerns during an emergency. It does not

19

address the issue of requiring inmates to prone out during an emergency. It is not

20

relevant to this action and need not be released.

21

23.

Exhibit 93: Venable Medical Records

22

This Exhibit contains inmate Venable’s confidential health information. The

23

privacy interests inherent in the records outweigh their relevancy. They need not be

24

released.

25
26
27
28
12

1

24.

Exhibit 94: Post Orders

2

This Exhibit contains Post Orders for the Facility C Lieutenant, the Facility C

3

Yard/Dining Sergeant, and the Facility C Program Sergeant. As Defendant was not a

4

lieutenant or sergeant, they are not relevant to this action and need not be released.

5

C.

Other: Report of Interview with Chief Warden Raythel Fischer

6

This report is not listed as an Exhibit to the Investigation Report and it is unclear

7

whether it was considered during the investigation. In any event, it concerns discussions

8

between Raythel and Warden Brazelton regarding when the Warden became aware of

9

the affected inmates’ alleged injuries. It has little relevance to Plaintiff’s claims and need

10

not be disclosed.

11

IV.

Protective Order

12

Defendants have requested a protective order prohibiting the dissemination of

13

confidential materials to Plaintiff and others. A protective order is indeed warranted

14

given the institutional concerns articulated by Defendants. Accordingly, the following

15

protective order applies to the privileged materials described above. Defendants shall

16

produce said materials and Plaintiff’s counsel may review them and use them in

17

litigating this matter subject to and in strictly in accordance with following terms and

18

conditions:

19
20

1. The confidential documents may be submitted to the possession of the
following persons:

21

a. Counsel for Plaintiff in this action;

22

b. Paralegal, stenographic, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly

23

employed by counsel for Plaintiff;

24

c. Court personnel and stenographic reporters engaged in such

25

proceedings as are incidental to the preparation for trial or trial of this

26

action;

27
28
13

1
2

d. Any outside expert or consultant retained by Plaintiff’s counsel for
purposes of this action; and

3

e. Non-inmate witnesses to whom the materials need be disclosed as

4

necessary for preparation for trial and trial of this case, provided that

5

each witness shall be informed of and agree in writing to be bound by

6

the terms of this order, and shall not, in any event, be permitted to

7

take or retain copies of the material .

8

2. Plaintiff’s counsel may share the confidential materials and their contents

9

with Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff may not copy them or retain them or retain

10

copies of them in his possession. Plaintiff may not discuss the content of the

11

materials with any other inmate, nor may any other inmate review or have

12

possession of the materials.

13

3. Upon final judgment or resolution of any appeal, Plaintiff’s counsel shall

14

return or destroy all such materials still in or subject to their possession or

15

control, and shall provide Defendant’s counsel with sworn declarations

16

stating they have done so.

17

4. No confidential material obtained by Plaintiff or his counsel shall be disclosed

18

except as is necessary to the litigation of this case, including if applicable its

19

appeal, and for no other purpose,

20

5. Any violation of this Protective Order may be punishable as Contempt of

21

Court and also may subject the violating party to litigation sanctions,

22

including dispositive sanctions, in the Court’s discretion;

23

6. Nothing in this Protective Order is intended to prevent officials or employees

24

of the State of California, or other authorized government officials, from

25

having access to confidential material to which they would have access in

26

the normal course of their official duties.

27
28
14

1

7. The provisions of this Protective Order are without prejudice to the right of

2

any party:

3

a. To apply to the Court for a further protective order relating to this or

4

any confidential material or relating to discovery in this litigation;

5

b. To apply to the Court for an order removing the confidential material

6

designation from any documents;

7

c. To apply to the Court for an order modifying this Protective Order for

8

good cause shown; or

9

d. To object to a discovery request.

10

8. The provisions of this order shall remain in full force and effect until further

11
12
13
14

order of this Court.
V.

Further Discovery Disputes
No further discovery motion may be filed without prior approval obtained in

accordance with the following Telephonic Discovery Dispute Conference procedures.

15

A.

Requesting a Conference

16

A party with a discovery dispute shall confer with the opposing party in a good

17

faith effort to resolve the dispute without court action. If such effort fails, the moving

18

party shall, prior to filing a notice of motion, contact Courtroom Deputy, Megan Lafata

19

at [e-mail] to request a pre-motion telephone conference with

20

Magistrate Judge Seng. The request shall be deemed to include a professional

21

representation by the requesting lawyer that a good faith effort to resolve the dispute

22

took place but failed, and it shall advise the Court of dates and times in the next ten

23

day period when all concerned parties can be available to confer regarding the dispute.

24

B.

Scheduling.

25

The Court will issue a Minute Order advising counsel of the time and date of the

26

telephone conference. The Court will provide the parties with the conference call

27

number and access code for joining the scheduled telephonic conference.

28
15

1

C.

2

Not later than four business hours before the scheduled conference, each party

3

may submit a two page brief objectively and factually outlining the dispute, the party's

4

position on it, and the reasons therefore to [e-mail]. The two

5

pages shall be in at least twelve point type and include the name of the party and the

6

date of submission. It shall contain nothing more. There shall be no attachments. There

7

shall be no editorializing. Inclusion therein of adjectives or adverbs or any

8

characterization of an opponent's motives, methods, character, past practices, or the

9

like shall subject the author to sanctions.

Briefing

10

D.

The Conference

11

At the conference, the Court will discuss the issue raised and announce its

12

anticipated ruling on the dispute. If a party is dissatisfied with that ruling, it may seek

13

permission to file a formal motion.

14

E.

15

If it is determined that motion papers and supporting memoranda are needed to

16

satisfactorily resolve the dispute, the undersigned shall approve the filing of a written

17

motion.

18

VI.

19

Further Proceedings

Order
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. Within twenty days of this order, the following items must be produced to

21

Plaintiff’s counsel and are not subject to the protective order: Exhibits 1, 2,

22

4 (in relevant part as described above), 5 (in relevant part, as described

23

above), 18, and 20 (in relevant part as described above). These items may

24

be shared directly with Plaintiff without limitation.

25

2. Within twenty days of this order, the following items must be produced to

26

Plaintiff’s counsel, subject to the protective order: Defendant’s OIA

27

Investigation Report, and Exhibits 4 and 5 (in relevant part, as described

28
16

1

above), 6-13, 16 (in relevant part, as described above), 17 (in relevant part,

2

as described above), 20 (in relevant part as discussed above) 31, 32, 63,

3

and 66. These items may be shared with Plaintiff subject to the protective

4

order.

5

3. Defendant may redact the following information from his Investigation

6

Report:

7

•

Redaction of introductory paragraph containing Defendant’s

8

personal information (full name, title, then-current location, date of birth, and

9

hire date).

10

•

Redaction of all first names, other than first initial.

11

•

Redaction of review of inmate Butler’s medical records (pages 13-

•

Redaction of review of interview of Dr. Chokatos concerning

12

14).

13
14

inmate Butler (pages 73-76).
•

15
16

Redaction of a paragraph of the interview of L. Quezada (page 83,

final paragraph) regarding confidential informants.

17

•

Redaction of review of inmate Fields’ medical records (page 101).

18

•

Redaction of review of inmate Venable’s medical records (page

19

102).

20

4. Defendant may redact the following information from other materials

21

subject to the protective order:

22

•

Redaction of all first names, other than first initial.

23

•

Redaction of all email addresses.

24

•

Redaction of other personal identifying information.

25

5. If Defendant believes additional redactions are necessary to ensure

26

privacy and security, he may request same within ten days of the date of

27

this order.

28
17

1

6. The remaining documents submitted for in camera review need not be

2

disclosed to Plaintiff or his counsel.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 16, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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