Furnace v. Knuckles et al

Filing 276

ORDER Following In Camera Review by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

EDWARD TERRAN FURNACE,

Case No. 09-cv-06075-MMC (EDL)

Plaintiff,
10
v.

ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA
REVIEW

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

K. NUCKLES, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff brought this § 1983 action against CDCR correctional officers and staff for

15

excessive force, retaliation, and deliberate indifference arising from a series of constitutional

16

deprivations he allegedly suffered at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) from 2005 to 2008.

17

Plaintiff claims that in retaliation for his bringing this lawsuit, Defendants, among other things: (1)

18

falsely identified Plaintiff as a child rapist in prison records and in the presence of other inmates

19

for the purpose of causing inmates to injure him; (2) severely beat him on February 2, 2008, in

20

two different rooms without video cameras while his hands and feet were bound; and (3) then

21

locked him inside a small metal cage, denying him medical treatment.
This Court has heard several discovery disputes in this case. Most recently, on April 23,

22
23

2015, the Court issued an Order resolving several outstanding discovery disputes following a

24

motion to compel. With respect to the confidential portion of Plaintiff’s central file, the Court

25

stated:

26
27
28

The parties dispute production of Plaintiff’s 286-page confidential file. Plaintiff
contends that CDCR is improperly withholding the confidential portion of his central
file based on the official information privilege, whereas the Court has previously stated
that CDCR’s concerns could be alleviated by an AEO protective order. Plaintiff agrees
to accept only the confidential documents in the central file that relate to himself, and

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

to redaction of other inmate names from those documents. Plaintiff specifically wants
“housing documents” that he believes may be evidence of retaliation against him.
CDCR counters that over 240 pages of the file do not relate to Plaintiff or this
litigation, 222 pages of the file consists of seven lengthy “debriefing reports” that
mention Plaintiff on only 18 pages, and 18 pages of the file list Plaintiff’s “confidential
enemies” and are used to make decisions on which inmates should be housed
separately. However, this is beside the point as Plaintiff is only seeking documents
relating to himself, and agrees that information about other inmates should be redacted.
CDCR also argues that even the documents that mention Furnace in a substantive
capacity are properly withheld under the official information privilege because of
safety issues involved, and an AEO protective order is insufficient in the prison
context. CDCR notes that the confidential portion of the file contains information that,
if disclosed, could put other inmate’s lives in danger and stop them from providing
information to staff. CDCR requests, at a minimum, an in camera review. To support
this argument, CDCR has submitted the declaration of Brian Hancock, litigation
coordinator at Kern Valley State Prison. See Joint Letter Ex. C. Mr. Hancock states
that disclosure of confidential portions of the central file, even if redacted, would likely
subject confidential informants to attack and contribute to inmates refusing to become
informants. He believes that “there is simply no way to craft a protective order to
address all the concerns caused by releasing confidential investigations to inmates” and
there have been many occasions in his experience where inmates were in possession of
documents produced pursuant to a protective order. See Ex. C ¶ 3-6. This declaration
is still fairly generalized, and does not directly address the production of these
documents under an AEO designation. However, in an abundance of caution, and in
light of Mr. Hancock’s articulated concern about inmate and public safety, the Court
agrees to conduct an in camera review of the confidential portion of Plaintiff’s central
file. A copy of these confidential documents shall be lodged with Judge Laporte’s
chambers within one week of the date of this order for the Court to conduct an in
camera review.

Dkt. # 274 at 8.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CDCR has lodged a copy of the documents for in camera review and the Court has
reviewed them. A large majority of these documents mention Plaintiff only among a list of known
gang members or enemies, apparently to determine where to house other inmates for safety
purposes, or in reports that do not relate to the incidents at issue in this litigation. Given the
serious safety concerns articulated by CDCR in Mr. Hancock’s declaration, and the lack of
relevance of these documents to Plaintiff or this case, the Court will not order their production.
However, one group of documents Bates numbered CDCR 8693-8696 are specific to Plaintiff and
safety concerns relating to him and his housing status. These four documents from the
confidential portion of Plaintiff’s central file shall be produced in redacted form under Attorney’s
Eyes Only protection of the protective order. CDCR shall redact all inmate names, CDCR
numbers and other personal identifying information from these documents, and then produce them
2

1

to Plaintiff within one week of the date of this order.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 6, 2015

5
________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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