Kindred v. Allenby et al

Filing 57

ORDER following in camera review re 52 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/5/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RICHARD S. KINDRED, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01652-AWI-MJS (PC) ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW v. CLIFF ALLENBY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendants Bigot and Bell 19 on Plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise claim. The claim arises out of Plaintiff’s 20 allegation that Defendants denied him spiritual or sacred items that are used in the daily 21 practice of his religion even though the items do not implicate safety and security 22 concerns. 23 The matter came on for a telephonic discovery dispute conference on November 24 22, 2017. (ECF No. 52.) Therein, counsel for defendants agreed to provide the Court 25 with Administrative Directives 402, 806, 838, and 991 for in camera review. These items 26 had been withheld from Plaintiff during discovery on institutional security grounds. 27 28 1 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant 2 to any party's claim or defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of 3 any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 4 Where otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security 5 of a prison or institution, or infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise 6 for the Court to balance interests in determining whether disclosure should occur. See 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) 8 (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and language of Rule 26(c)); 9 Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 10 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto v. City of 11 Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based 12 right of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV- 13 00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting 14 inmate's entitlement to inspect discoverable information may be accommodated in ways 15 which mitigate institutional safety concerns); Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380- 16 AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) (issuing protective 17 order regarding documents containing information which implicated the safety and 18 security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1- 19 2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for redaction of 20 information asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution if 21 released); Womack v. Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 22 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring defendants to submit withheld documents for in 23 camera review or move for a protective order). 24 Here, the Court has reviewed the documents submitted by Defendants and 25 concludes that, with the exception of the material specifically delineated below, they 26 contain nothing of conceivable relevance to Plaintiff’s claims in this action and nothing 27 that might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The only material of potential, 28 2 1 albeit minimal, relevance is found in Administrative Directive 838, Section VI, 2 Subsections A and B. The Court finds that disclosure of this material to Plaintiff for 3 purposes of this litigation would not reasonably jeopardize institutional safety or security. 4 It should be disclosed to Plaintiff, subject to a protective order. Defendants will be 5 required to provide Plaintiff the information contained in the heading on the first page of 6 the Administrative Directive (Directive number, subject matter, and revised and effective 7 dates), as well as the material appearing in Section VI, Subsections A and B in the 8 8/13/13, 8/12/14, and 11/7/14 versions of the Directive. The remainder of the Directive 9 may be redacted. 10 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Defendants must disclose to Plaintiff the portions of Administrative 12 Directive 838 identified herein, subject to a protective order; 13 2. Defendants may object to such disclosure within ten (10) days of the date 14 of service of this order; 15 3. Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery of the remaining Administrative 16 Directives under review; 17 4. Within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order, Defendants shall 18 submit a proposed protective order, preferably upon stipulation of the 19 parties; 20 5. Defendants shall release the materials to Plaintiff within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s issuance of a protective order. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 5, 2017 /s/ 25 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 3

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?