Prasad et al v. County of Sutter et al

Filing 100

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/2/13 ORDERING that within 7 days defendants shall produce documents in accordance with this order; the remaining documents submitted for in camera review need not be produced. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MARY PRASAD, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12
13

No. 2:12-cv-00592 TLN JFM

vs.
COUNTY OF SUTTER, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER

________________________________/

16

Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel production of documents was heard on June

17

12, 2013. Following the hearing, the court issued an order requiring defendants to submit “for in

18

camera review those portions of the requested personnel files containing grievances against

19

individual officers and Internal Affairs Reports, and any training attended by the officers” by

20

June 28, 2013. ECF No. 91. Pursuant to the order, defendants have submitted the required

21

documents.

22

The undersigned has reviewed the documents and considered defendants’

23

objections to production. Defendants object to producing Bates-stamped documents “Eaton

24

00058-00064,” on the grounds of third-party privacy and relevancy. As to the third-party privacy

25

argument, the court finds that redaction of the documents with information unrelated to

26

defendant Eaton will sufficiently address defendants’ objections. As to the relevance argument,
1

1

“[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it

2

would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.”

3

Fed. R. Evid. 401. In the operative second amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendants

4

have been aware of, among other things, “widespread deficiencies in training. . . for the provision

5

of health care to inmates at Sutter County Jail.” ECF No. 50 at 3. The court finds that training

6

courses defendant Eaton attended are relevant to plaintiffs’ allegations.

7

Defendants also object to producing Bates-stamped document “Garbett 00021,”

8

on the grounds of privacy and relevancy. The court finds the issue of privacy is addressed by the

9

parties’ protective order. ECF No. 94. With regard to relevancy, plaintiffs allege that defendants

10

have been aware of deficiencies in staffing and have failed to provide appropriate staffing and

11

training at Sutter County Jail. See ECF No. 50 at 3, 33. The court finds the document is relevant

12

to these allegations.

13

Accordingly, the court ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

14

1. Within seven days of the date of this order, defendants shall produce the

15

following documents related to defendant Lester Eaton: Eaton 00058 (with lines 1-6 and 8-20 of

16

the attendance roster portion of the sheet redacted), Eaton 00059 (with lines 1-14 and 16-18 of

17

the attendance roster portion of the sheet redacted), Eaton 00060 (with lines 2-20 of the

18

attendance roster portion of the sheet redacted), Eaton 00061 (with lines 1-13 and 15-20 of the

19

attendance roster portion of the sheet redacted), Eaton 00062 (with lines 1-4 and 6-10 of the

20

attendance roster portion of the sheet redacted), Eaton 00063 (with lines 1 and 3-16 of the

21

attendance roster portion of the sheet redacted), and Eaton 00064 (with lines 1-15 and 17-20 of

22

the attendance roster portion of the sheet redacted).

23

2. Within seven days of the date of this order, defendants shall produce the

24

following document related to defendant Brent Garbett: Garbett 00021.

25

/////

26

/////
2

1
2
3

3. The court finds that the remaining documents submitted by defendants for in
camera review need not be produced.
Dated: July 2, 2013

4

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8

pras0592.icr

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3