Williams v. Baker et al
Filing
226
ORDER DENYING 220 Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 1/28/2025. (Deputy Clerk OFR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SHANNON WILLIAMS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
Case No. 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO CLARIFY
v.
(Doc. No. 220)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
16
17
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to clarify, filed January 13, 2025. (Doc.
18
No. 220). Plaintiff moves “to be included in the protective order, and review protected
19
materials,” specifically with respect to the location of cameras within Unit 6B of USP Atwater.
20
(Id. at 1). Plaintiff’s request to be “included” in the protective order amounts to an allegation that
21
certain discovery was withheld from him based on an “attorneys’ eyes only” designation
22
contained in the stipulated protective order entered on April 14, 2023. (See Doc. No. 135).
23
Defendant did not file a response to the motion and the time to do so has expired. See Local Rule
24
230(l) (affording 21 days to file response to motions in prisoner actions).
25
Plaintiff has raised his concern that he did not receive all the relevant discovery on
26
multiple occasions and the Court has taken steps to address his concerns. Most recently, the
27
Court ordered Plaintiff’s former pro bono counsel Carter C. White to “mail a copy of any
28
remaining materials not previously provided and related to Plaintiff’s case to” Plaintiff; “[t]o the
1
extent the file does not contain any documents related to the discovery dispute concerning the
2
alleged destruction of video, … explain the lack of documents in a letter to Plaintiff;” and file a
3
Notice of Compliance with the Court’s orders. (Doc. No. 208 at 3). Mr. White filed the required
4
Notice of Compliance, certifying he sent Plaintiff several hundred pages of his file in September
5
2024; sent additional file notes regarding the March 8, 2023 discovery conference and other
6
related material to Plaintiff in December 2024; and sent “a few additional pages of material
7
including a research memorandum” to Plaintiff in January 7, 2025. (Doc. No. 217 at 1-2). Mr.
8
White did not indicate that any information was withheld based on the protective order. (See id.).
9
Based on the record before the Court, there is no indication that any discovery material,
10
including any discovery that may have been produced and marked “attorneys’ eyes only” has
11
been withheld from Plaintiff. Rather, as the Court previously observed in denying Plaintiff’s
12
motion to reopen discovery, “[t]he evidence before the Court establishes that former counsel
13
conducted extensive discovery related to the cameras at USP Atwater and former counsel …
14
provided all materials related to such to Plaintiff.” (Doc. No. 219 at 4 (emphasis added)). The
15
simple inclusion of an “attorneys’ eyes only” provision in the protective order does not indicate
16
that any material was designated as such when produced, let alone withheld from Plaintiff. In
17
other words, the Court has no reason to find that any documents produced by Defendant to
18
Plaintiff’s former counsel has been withheld from Plaintiff.
19
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
20
Plaintiff’s motion to clarify (Doc. No. 220) is DENIED.
21
22
Dated:
January 28, 2025
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?