Huitron v. Padrnos et al

Filing 22

ORDER APPROVING IN PART, Parties' Stipulation for PROTECTIVE ORDER and ISSUING PROTECTIVE ORDER for Confidential Materials, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 06/27/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE L. HUITRON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
L. PADRNOS, et al.,

CASE No. 1:16-cv-00415—AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER APPROVING, IN PART,
PARTIES’ STIPULATION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND ISSUING
PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Jose L. Huitron is a former state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action challenging the conditions of his confinement pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

19

§ 1983. His case proceeds on his first amended complaint against Defendants Padrnos,

20

Pena, Gonzales, and Guerrero for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

21

(ECF No. 9.) On December 19, 2016, Defendants filed their answer. (ECF No. 15.) On

22

December 20, 2016, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 16.)

23

On June 23, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order for a

24

protective order for certain documents deemed confidential by Defendants. (ECF No.

25

21.) Therein, the parties explained that, as part of discovery, Plaintiff requested “[a]ll

26

records of any CDCR committee pertaining to any investigation” of the alleged incident.

27

In the course of investigating Plaintiff’s requests, Defense counsel came into possession

28

of the use-of-force review of Incident Log No. COR-04A-15-05-0320, which contained
1

1

documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request. However, Defendants maintained that the

2

material was subject to qualified privilege as official information under Federal common

3

law, and, in California, was confidential under state laws and regulations. Defendants

4

also claimed that the unprotected disclosure of these materials could negatively impact

5

institutional security. Over Defendants’ objections, Plaintiff demanded the production of

6

summaries of witness statements and any transcript and audio or video recording of said

7

statements, to the extent such material existed.

8

After several meet-and-confers, the parties stipulated that the production of

9

certain confidential documents would be appropriate subject to a protective order limiting

10

their use to “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information to maintain the safety and security of

11

CDCR institutions, staff, and inmates. Defendants agreed to produce the summaries of

12

witness statements made as part of the use of force review of Incident Log No. COR-

13

04A-15-05-0329, as well as any transcript and audio or video recording of these

14

statements, if they exist.

15

The Court has reviewed the proposed protective order, and finds it is acceptable

16

save for one clause: proposed paragraph 7 stipulates that “[a]ny confidential material

17

filed with the Court by either party shall be filed and maintained under seal.” Courts

18

generally do not approve stipulations to seal documents produced in the course of

19

litigation unless and until the parties have made the requisite showing of good cause.

20

See Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Nixon v.

21

Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (courts have “recognize[d] a general right to

22

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and

23

documents.”) (footnotes omitted). As no such good cause showing has yet been made

24

here, the Court declines to approve the parties’ stipulation to seal any confidential

25

material at this time. Should the need arise, the parties are free to seek leave to seal

26

confidential documents in the future.

27

Accordingly, the following protective order shall issue:

28
2

CONDITIONS FOR RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL

1
2

Because of their relevance to this action, the Defendants will produce the

3

confidential material with the label “Confidential, Attorneys’ Eyes Only” without requiring

4

Plaintiff to move to compel its production, subject to this protective order and objections

5

asserted in Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, on the following

6

conditions:

7

1.

of CDCR staff or other witnesses shall be redacted.

8
9

The social security numbers and any other confidential personal information

2.

The confidential material may be disclosed only to the following persons:

10

(a)

Counsel of record for Plaintiff in this action;

11

(b)

Paralegal,

stenographic,

clerical

and

secretarial

personnel

regularly employed by counsel for Plaintiff;

12

(c)

13

Court personnel and stenographic reporters engaged in such

proceedings as are incidental to the preparation for the trial in this action;

14

(d)

15

Any outside expert or consultant retained by Plaintiff’s counsel for

purposes of this action;

16

(e)

17

Witnesses to whom the confidential material may be disclosed

18

during or in preparation for a deposition taken in this matter or otherwise

19

during the preparation for trial and trial, provided that the witness may not

20

leave any deposition or preparation with copies of any of the confidential

21

material, and shall be informed of and agree to be bound by the terms of this

22

order;

23

3.

Plaintiff’s counsel and his legal assistants and consultants shall not make

24

copies of the confidential material except as necessary for purposes of this

25

litigation.

26

4.

All confidential material in possession of Plaintiff’s counsel shall be destroyed

27

or returned to the CDCR within sixty days of the time it is no longer needed

28

for purposes of this litigation.
3

1

5.

When Plaintiff’s counsel returns or destroys the confidential material, he shall

2

provide Defendants’ counsel with a declaration stating that all confidential

3

material has been returned or destroyed.

4

6.

All confidential material obtained by Plaintiff’s counsel shall not be disclosed

5

except as is necessary in connection with this or related litigation, including

6

appeals, and not for any other purpose, including any other litigation.

7

7.

Nothing in this protective order is intended to prevent officials or employees of

8

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

9

access to confidential material to which they would have access in the normal
course of their official duties.

10
11

8.

The provisions of this protective order are without prejudice to the right of any

12

party:

13

(a)

confidential material or relating to discovery in this litigation;

14

(b)

15

To apply to the Court for an order removing the confidential

material designation from any documents;

16

(c)

17
18

To apply to the Court for a further protective order relating to any

9.

To object to a discovery request.

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

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 27, 2017

/s/

23

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
4