Haynes v. Sisto et al

Filing 103

ORDER signed by Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber on 5/4/12, ORDERING that the exhibits to Plaintiff's reply declaration in support of his motion to compel further document production shall be SEALED. Plaintiff's 95 motion to compel discovery is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

11
12

ROBERT HAYNES,

13

CIV S-08-2177-SPG (PC)

Plaintiff,

14
15

ORDER (1) APPROVING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
TO SEAL DOCUMENTS, AND (2) GRANTING, IN
PART, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY

vs.
D.K. SISTO et al.,

16

Defendants.

17

/

18
19

The court hereby approves Plaintiff's request to seal documents, and grants, in part, Plaintiff's
motion to compel discovery.

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

21

1. The exhibits to Plaintiff's reply declaration in support of his motion to compel further

22

document production shall be sealed.

23

2. The court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel production of an "Incident Management

24

File." Plaintiff has provided no basis to support his belief that the requested documents exist in the

25

format requested or that Defendant has failed to produce any subsidiary documents that would be

26

found in that format.

27

///

28

///

-1-

1

3. The court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel production of Attachments C & D to the

2

"unlock procedural guidelines." However, if Defendants uncover responsive documents in their

3

continuing review of their records, they shall produce those documents as soon as they are found.

4

4. The court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents received or

5

authored by Secretary Tilton regarding the challenged events. However, if Defendants uncover

6

responsive documents in their continuing review of their records, they shall produce those

7

documents as soon as they are found.

8
9

5. The court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents related to the
"Emergency Operations Policy" because Plaintiff has withdrawn that request.

10

6. The court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to compel production of the "Release Assessment

11

Plant" referred to in documents already produced by Defendants. The request is sufficiently specific

12

because it asks only for documents already identified in documents authored and produced by

13

Defendants.

14

7. The court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to compel production as to the remainder of the

15

documents requested, all of which are relevant and likely to lead to admissible evidence. Production

16

of those documents shall be under seal, and the parties are directed to confer to establish an

17

acceptable procedure for doing so.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated:

May 4, 2012

21
22

/s/ Susan P. Graber
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-