Gibbs v. Peterson, et al

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/20/2017 ORDERING the documents submitted for in camera review are not required to be disclosed to plaintiff.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH B. GIBBS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0061 KJM CKD P

v.

ORDER

MACCOMBER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to

17
18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order of October 10, 2017, defendants were required to produce the

19

assertedly privileged RVRs and medical reports responsive to plaintiff’s Request for Production

20

of Documents No. 7 for in camera review within 7 days. ECF No. 70. Defendants have

21

complied with this order.
Having reviewed the documents submitted for in camera review, the court concludes that

22
23

they are only minimally relevant to this action, and the balancing of the potential benefits of

24

disclosure against the potential disadvantages weighs against disclosure. See Sanchez v. City of

25

Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990), as amended on denial of reh'g (Feb. 27,

26

1991), as amended on denial of reh'g (May 24, 1991) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the documents submitted for in camera review are not

2

required to be disclosed to plaintiff.

3

Dated: October 20, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

12/gibb0061.incamera.docx

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2