Morris v. Sandoval et al

Filing 227

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 214 Motion RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT; granting 216 Motion for Protective Order; denying 221 Motion RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CONDALEE MORRIS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 12-cv-06132-JD

v.
D. SANDOVAL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT;
GRANTING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 214, 216, 221

12
13

This is a civil rights case filed by a state prisoner. Counsel that had been found by the

14

Court withdrew from this case and plaintiff again proceeds pro se. Plaintiff has filed a motion for

15

relief from a final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and defendants have filed a motion

16

for a protective order.

17

RECONSIDERATION

18

Plaintiff’s motion seeks relief from a judgment in another case and in this case. Plaintiff

19

filed the motion in the other case, Morris v. Koh, Case No. 16-cv-0581 JD, which was denied on

20

November 18, 2016. Plaintiff’s motion with respect to that action is denied. Because this case

21

continues and there is no final judgment, the Rule 60(b) motion is denied. To the extent plaintiff

22

seeks reconsideration of prior orders in this case, it is also denied.

23

No pre-judgment motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9 may be brought without

24

leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). The moving party must specifically show: (1) that at the

25

time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was

26

presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for which the reconsideration is

27

sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did

28

not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the emergence of new

1

material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by

2

the court to consider material facts which were presented to the court before such interlocutory

3

order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

4

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden for reconsideration. To the extent plaintiff seeks to

5

amend his complaint and request discovery, summary judgment was decided on June 11, 2014,

6

and this case is proceeding to trial. It is long past the time for amendment. Plaintiff has not

7

shown why more discovery is required two years after the summary judgment order and especially

8

as discovery was reopened when plaintiff was appointed counsel and plaintiff’s attorney engaged

9

in additional discovery. The motion for reconsideration is denied.

10

To the extent that plaintiff seeks discovery regarding the finances of the defendants, the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

request is denied. Plaintiff’s request for the bank accounts, tax returns, property ownership

12

records, income statements, and insurance policies of the defendants is unduly intrusive and

13

completely irrelevant to this action.

14

Plaintiff’s request for a settlement conference before the undersigned judge is denied. Two

15

prior settlement conferences were held before Magistrate Judge Vadas, one while plaintiff was pro

16

se and one while plaintiff was represented by counsel. The case did not settle either time. This

17

judge is presiding over the merits of the case and a settlement conference with him is not

18

appropriate. However, plaintiff and defendants may continue settlement discussions.

19

PROTECTIVE ORDER

20

Defendants seek that certain documents provided in discovery to plaintiff’s counsel that

21

were “Confidential-Attorney’s Eyes Only” be returned and not provided to plaintiff. As a general

22

rule, the public is permitted access to litigation documents and information produced during

23

discovery. In the Matter of Roman Catholic Archbishop, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011).

24

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, “[t]he court may, for good cause,

25

issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

26

burden or expense.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)). The party opposing the disclosure has

27

the burden of proving “good cause,” which requires a showing that specific prejudice or harm will

28

result if the protective order is not granted. Id.
2

1

A court considering a motion for continuation of a protective order must proceed in two

2

steps. First, it must determine whether particularized harm will result from disclosure of

3

information to the public. Id. at 424. Second, if the court concludes that such harm will result

4

from disclosure of the discovery documents, then it must proceed to balance the public and private

5

interests to decide whether maintaining a protective order is necessary. Id. at 424 & n.5.

6

Defendants seek a protective order regarding documents that are post order from the prison

7

that reveal work schedules for staff and movement scheduled for correctional officers. If plaintiff

8

or other prisoner became aware of work and movement schedules of correctional officers the

9

safety and security of the prison could be in jeopardy. Inmates would know when and where to
carry out illegal or dangerous activities. Plaintiff has not addressed in his response why these

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

documents are necessary nor has he addressed the safety concerns. The Court finds that

12

defendants have met their burden and the protective order is granted.

13

CONCLUSION

14

1. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from a final judgment (Docket Nos. 214, 221) is DENIED.

15

2. Defendants’ motion for a protective order (Docket No. 216) is GRANTED and

16

plaintiff’s withdrawing counsel shall return the relevant documents, Bates stamped AG6545 to

17

AG6586, to defendants and not produce them to plaintiff.

18

3. Plaintiff’s requests for discovery and settlement are DENIED as discussed above.

19

3. The Clerk shall forward this order to plaintiff’s former counsels at McKool Smith

20
21
22

Hennigan P.C.: Courtland Reichman, Jennifer Estremera and Vandya Swaminathan.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 17, 2017

23
24
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CONDALEE MORRIS,

Case No. 12-cv-06132-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

D. SANDOVAL, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on January 17, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Condalee Morris ID: #:V96203
Calif. State Prison, Sacramento
P.O. Box 290066
Represa, CA 95671

19
20
21

Dated: January 17, 2017

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4