Jones v. Clark, et al.

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/7/2015 ORDERING that no later than 14 days, defendants shall produce the documents filed under seal (ECF No. 52 ) to plaintiff; and no later than 45 days, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' 44 motion for summary judgment.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GERALD JONES,

12

No. 2:14-cv-0987 CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. CLARK, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

In its August 25, 2015 ruling on plaintiff’s motions to compel, the court ordered

18

defendants to submit five investigatory documents for in camera review, as such materials were

19

potentially responsive to plaintiff’s requests. (ECF No. 47.) Based on defendants’ representation

20

that disclosure of these documents could impact institutional safety, the court ordered the

21

documents to be filed under seal. (ECF No. 51.)

22

Having reviewed these documents in camera and ascertained that they are responsive to

23

plaintiff’s document requests and highly relevant to plaintiff’s claims, the court now considers

24

whether they should be disclosed to plaintiff under a protective order.

25

“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from

26

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).

27

The court has broad discretion to decide when it is appropriate to issue a protective order and the

28

degree of protection required. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d
1

1

1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002).

2

The five documents at issue are internal investigative reports concerning the September

3

25, 2012 incident that is the basis of plaintiff’s excessive force claim against defendant Stephens.1

4

(ECF No. 52.) In opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants submitted the declaration

5

of D. Azevedo, an Office Assistant to the Litigation Coordinator for Mule Creek State Prison,

6

who declared in part:

7

7. Investigative and inquiry findings and reports are generally
prepared on the basis of, among other things, interviews with
prisoners and custodial staff, with the understanding that statements
made in the course of the interviews will remain confidential.

8
9

...

10

13

8. The disclosure of these investigative findings could lead to
witnesses being unwilling, or less willing, to cooperate with
investigators. Witnesses could also be subject to reprisals from
other inmates based on their statements. Both of these situations
would have obvious negative impacts on the safety and security of
the institution.

14

...

15

13. An inmate’s access to an officer’s employee records or other
personnel-related information would lead to harassment and
potential safety and security concerns for the staff member
involved.

11
12

16
17
18

(ECF No. 42, Ex. A at 13-14.)

19

However, the documents at issue do not name inmate witnesses. Nor do they contain

20

personnel information more sensitive than is normally disclosed in the course of discovery. Thus

21

the court concludes that no protective order is warranted and will order the documents produced

22

to plaintiff as discoverable.

23

////

24

////

25
1

26
27
28

(1) November 30, 2012 Institutional Executive Review Committee Critique and Qualitative
Evaluation; (2) November 30, 2012 IERC Use of Force Review and Further Action
Recommendation; (3) September 25, 2012 Incident Commander’s Review/Critique Use of Force
Incidents; (4) October 2, 2012 Manager’s Review – First Level Use of Force Incidents; and (5)
October 3, 2012 Manager’s Review – Second Level Use of Force Incidents. (Id.)
2

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

2

1. No later than fourteen days from the date of this order, defendants shall produce the

3

documents filed under seal at ECF No. 52 to plaintiff; and

4

2. No later than forty-five days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an

5

opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF

6

No. 44).

7

Dated: October 7, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12

2 / hard2371.po

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3