(PC) Jones v. Pfeiffer et al
ORDER GRANTING 65 Motion for Clarification and Motion for Enlargement of Time signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 7/14/2021. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DYRELL WAYNE JONES,
J. WALINGA, ET. AL.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00396-DAD-HBK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION AND MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
(Doc. No. 65)
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for clarification and supporting
declaration of attorney Alice M. Segal. (Doc. Nos. 65, 65-1, “Motion”). The Motion seeks
clarification of the Court’s June 25, 2021 Order (Doc. No. 62) and an enlargement of time to
comply with the Court’s June 25, 2021 Order. (See generally Doc. No. 65).
As background, the Court’s June 25 Order granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s
motion to compel. (Doc. No. 62 at 6-7). To the extent Plaintiff’s motion to compel was granted,
the June 25 Order directed Defendants to produce “any reports or complaints lodged against
defendants for misconduct in their capacity as correctional officers from the date they began
working at CDCR to the date of the alleged incident involving Plaintiff.” (Id. at 5). The deadline
to produce the documents was fourteen days of the date on the order. (Id. at 6). Defendants’
Motion seeks a sixty-day enlargement of time to the above-referenced deadline to produce the
documents to Plaintiff, explaining that the Litigation Coordinator at Kern Valley State Prison is
on vacation until July 19, 2021 and he is solely responsible for gathering the documents. (See
Doc. No. 65 at 2-3; Doc. No. 65-1 at 2). Additionally, Defendants’ Motion seeks clarification as
to whether Defendants may redact third-party inmates’ identifying information from the
documents. (Doc. No. 65 at 3-5). Defendants submit that third-party inmates do not have any
involvement in the facts underlying this case and have not consented to having their grievances
released to the Plaintiff. (Id. at 4). Defendants further note that a review of the June 25 Order
shows the substance of the production is directed at the facts contained in the grievances, not the
identity of the inmate making the grievance. (Id. at 5). Defendants argue that the third-party
inmates have an interest in confidentiality or face increased risk in an already dangerous
environment given the content of the grievances. (Doc. No. 65 at 5; see also Doc. No. 65-1 at 2).
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff did not request the third-party inmates’ names. To the
extent Defendants are concerned about disclosure of the third-party inmates’ identities in this
production, the Court agrees that redaction of the inmates’ identities is proper. Lamon v. Adams,
No. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SKO-PC, 2010 WL 4513405 *3 (E.D. Ca. Nov. 2, 2010). Indeed, the
Court may limit the scope of discovery to protect the privacy interests of litigants and other third
parties. Id. Additionally, the Court find Defendants have shown good cause to warrant a sixty-
day enlargement of time to produce the relevant documents.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ motion for clarification (Doc. No. 65) is GRANTED and the third-parties
inmates’ identities shall be redacted.
2. Defendants’ motion for an enlargement of time (Doc. No. 65) is GRANTED and
Defendants shall produce the documents as directed in the June 25 Order, clarified by the instant
order, on Plaintiff no later than September 17, 2021.
July 14, 2021
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?