Corena v. Holland et al
Filing
48
ORDER following hearing and status conference re 39 , 43 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/17/2018. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
JORGE CORENA,
11
12
13
14
Case No. 1:16-cv-01025-LJO-EPG (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING AND
STATUS CONFERENCE
v.
(ECF NOS. 39 & 43)
RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Jorge Corena (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 10, 2018, the Court
held a hearing and status conference in this case.
(ECF No. 47).
Plaintiff appeared
telephonically on his own behalf. Counsel Mark Ahn appeared telephonically on behalf of
Defendant Rodriguez.
For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Paragraphs 2 and 4 in the Court’s Order Following Initial Scheduling
Conference (ECF No. 37) is modified as follows: Defendant Rodriguez does not
need to provide Plaintiff with unredacted versions of the medical ledger or the
log book to inspect.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 39) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff has until September 24, 2018, to produce to defendant Rodriguez all
28
1
1
documents in his possession, custody, or control, related to exhaustion of
2
administrative remedies of the claims in this case. Plaintiff does not need to
3
provide documents he already provided, or documents provided to him by
4
defendant Rodriguez.
5
4. The exhaustion motion filing deadline is extended to October 26, 2018.
6
5. Defendant Rodriguez’s motion for a protective order is granted only as to
7
photographs of prison personnel,1 only as follows: 1) the photographs are to be
8
retained by the prison’s litigation coordinator at Plaintiff’s institution, and
9
Plaintiff may review the documents through his correctional counselor; 2) the
10
photographs are for Plaintiff’s eyes only, and he shall not disseminate them; and
11
3) the photographs are to be used solely in conjunction with this case, and no
12
copies shall be made except for submission to the Court or parties.
13
6. Within fourteen days from the date of service of this order, Defendant
14
Rodriguez shall produce to Plaintiff the redacted version of the investigative
15
report that he provided to the Court for in camera review. As stated on the
16
record, the Court finds that defendant Rodriguez properly redacted the inmate’s
17
name and statement under the official information privilege.
18
7. Plaintiff may write to defense counsel no later than September 24, 2018, stating
19
the names of the individuals he believes are defendant Rodriguez’s co-
20
defendants, and asking for production of photographs of those individuals. No
21
later than October 1, 2018, defense counsel shall either make the photographs
22
available to Plaintiff, or inform Plaintiff that no such photograph(s) exist or that
23
there were no such person(s) working at California Correctional Institute during
24
the relevant period.
25
8. The Doe Defendant Identification Deadline is extended to October 5, 2018.
26
9. Except as stated above, and given the prior orders in this case, Plaintiff may not
27
1
28
Nothing in this order prevents defendant Rodriguez from redacting sensitive personal information, such
as addresses and social security numbers, in documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s discovery request(s).
2
1
seek further discovery regarding the Doe Defendants’ identities, and defendant
2
Rodriguez may object to discovery requests on this ground.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 17, 2018
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?