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)

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