Nunez v. Porter, et al

Filing 93

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/10/17 ordering plaintiff's request for the unredacted emails contained in his motion for in camera review 84 is denied. The clerk of the court is directed to file unders seal the unred acted emails provided by defendant for in camera review on 2/08/17. Within 14 days of the date of this order, defendant shall re-notice to previously filed summary judgment motion; plaintiff's opposition is due within 30 days after the notice is served; defendant's reply, if any is due within 21 days thereafter. (Plummer, 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

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2: 12-cv-2775 JAM KJN P

v.

ORDER

K.M. PORTER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

17
18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s request for defendant to provide him

19

with an unredacted copy of the emails provided to him in response to a request for production of

20

documents is denied.

21

On September 27, 2016, the undersigned granted in part and denied part plaintiff’s motion

22

to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 82.) The undersigned ordered defendant to respond to the request

23

for admissions and request for production of documents served by plaintiff on December 3, 2015.

24

(Id.)

25

After receiving defendant’s response to his discovery responses, plaintiff filed a motion

26

for in camera review. (ECF No. 84.) Plaintiff alleged that defendant provided him with two

27

redacted emails. (Id.) Plaintiff requested that the court conduct an in camera review of the

28

unredacted versions of the emails to determine whether the information was relevant. (Id.)
1

1

On November 22, 2016, defendant filed a pleading stating that he did not oppose the

2

court’s in camera review of the unredacted emails. (ECF No. 85.) On January 19, 2017, the

3

undersigned ordered defendant to submit the at-issue, unredacated emails for in camera review.

4

(ECF No. 86.)

5

On February 8, 2017, defendant submitted the at-issue unredacted emails for in camera

6

review. After reviewing the emails, the undersigned found that the redacted information was

7

most likely not relevant. However, in an abundance of caution, on February 10, 2017, the

8

undersigned ordered plaintiff to submit the request for production of documents relevant to the at-

9

issue emails so that the undersigned could make a final determination regarding relevancy. (ECF

10

No. 88.)

11

On February 23, 2017, plaintiff filed a response to the February 10, 2017 order. (ECF No.

12

89.) Plaintiff did not provide the court with the request for production of documents relevant to

13

the at-issue emails. Instead, plaintiff’s February 23, 2017 pleading appeared to be a newly

14

drafted request for production of documents in which he sought documents that “express …

15

defendant’s unprofessional conduct” and that would be relevant to proving defendant’s bias,

16

prejudice and indifference toward plaintiff.

17

On March 17, 2017, the undersigned issued an order clarifying the February 23, 2017

18

order. (ECF No. 91.) The undersigned clarified that plaintiff was directed to submit to the court

19

the request for production of documents that resulted in defendant’s production of the at-issue

20

emails. (Id.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen days to submit this document. (Id.)

21

On April 3, 2017, plaintiff filed a response to the March 17, 2017 order. (ECF No. 92.)

22

In this pleading, plaintiff again failed to provide the request for production of documents that

23

resulted in defendant’s production of the at-issue emails. Instead, plaintiff argues that defendant

24

should be ordered to provide him with the unredacted emails.

25

The undersigned has again reviewed the unredacted emails submitted for in camera

26

review and finds that they are not relevant to plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for

27

defendant to provide him with the unredacted emails is denied.

28

////
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s request for the unredacted emails contained in his motion for in camera

3
4
5

review (ECF No. 84) is denied;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file, under seal, the unredacted emails provided
by defendant for in camera review on February 8, 2017;

6

3. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, defendant shall re-notice the previously

7

filed summary judgment motion; plaintiff’s opposition is due within thirty days after the notice is

8

served; defendant’s reply, if any, is due within twenty-one days thereafter.

9

Dated: April 10, 2017

10
11
12
13
Nun2775.ord
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3