Nunez v. Porter, et al

Filing 88

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/10/17 ORDERING that within 14 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall provide the court with a copy of the request for production of documents relevant to the at- issue emails; plaintiff shall also identify which specific request for production of documents in response to which defendant produced the emails.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CURTIS NUNEZ, JR., 12 13 14 15 No. 2: 12-cv-2775 JAM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER K. M. PORTER, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 27, 2016, the undersigned granted in part and denied in part 19 plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 82.) The undersigned ordered defendant to 20 respond to the request for admissions and request for production of documents served by plaintiff 21 on December 3, 2015. (Id.) 22 After receiving defendant’s response to his discovery requests, plaintiff filed a motion for 23 in camera review. (ECF No. 84.) Plaintiff alleged that defendant provided him with two redacted 24 emails. (Id.) Plaintiff requested that the court conduct an in camera review of the unredacted 25 versions of the emails to determine whether the redacted information was relevant. (Id.) 26 On November 22, 2016, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s motion for in camera 27 review. (ECF No. 85.) Defendant stated that the redacted emails concerned information about 28 nonparties and defendant submitted a privilege log to plaintiff to that effect. (Id.) Defendant did 1 1 2 not oppose the court’s in camera review of the emails. (Id.) On January 19, 2017, the undersigned ordered defendant to submit the at-issue emails for 3 in camera review. (ECF No. 86.) Defendant has now submitted the unredacted emails for in 4 camera review. After reviewing the mails, the undersigned finds that the redacted information is 5 most likely not relevant. However, in an abundance of caution, plaintiff is ordered to submit the 6 request for production of documents relevant to the at-issue emails so that the undersigned may 7 make a final determination regarding relevancy. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date of this 9 order, plaintiff shall provide the court with a copy of the request for production of documents 10 relevant to the at-issue emails; plaintiff shall also identify which specific request for production of 11 documents in response to which defendant produced the emails. 12 Dated: February 10, 2017 13 14 15 16 Nun2775.fb 17 18 19 20 21 22 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?