Guerrero v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 285

ORDER GRANTING 283 STIPULATION CONCERNING REDACTIONOF TRIAL EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTOEVIDENCE.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Christopher Ho, State Bar No. 129845
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY –
EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
VICTOR GUERRERO

8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

VICTOR GUERRERO,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION;
STATE PERSONNEL BOARD; and, in their
official capacities, JEFFREY BEARD,
Secretary of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation; SUZANNE
AMBROSE, Executive Officer of State
Personnel Board; K. CARROLL, Lieutenant;
D. SHARP, Sergeant; BARBARA
LEASHORE, Hearing Officer; C. HESTER,
Lieutenant; V. MAYOL, Lieutenant; S.
COX, Lieutenant; V. MYERS, Sergeant;
JOHN (OR JANE) DOES 1-100, all of
whose names are unknown,
Defendants.

25

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-cv-05671-WHA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONCERNING REDACTION
OF TRIAL EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO
EVIDENCE
[Hon. William Alsup]

26
27
28
29
{00450485.DOCX}

30
31
32

[3:13-cv-05671-WHA]

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING REDACTION OF TRIAL
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

Prior to the trial of this matter, the parties and Court agreed that redaction of personally

1
2

identifying information from trial exhibits would be undertaken after the conclusion of the trial,

3

once it had been determined which of those exhibits would actually be admitted into evidence.

4

Pursuant to the Court’s order of September 28, 2015 (Doc. No. 276), the parties have meet and

5

conferred, and propose the following process to effect the redaction of the admitted exhibits:

6

1.

By December 4, 2015, the parties shall provide the Court with versions of all

7

admitted exhibits redacted of personal (as opposed to business) names, addresses, telephone

8

numbers, email addresses, birth dates, drivers’ license numbers, and passport numbers.

9

Additionally, all Social Security numbers and financial account numbers on the admitted exhibits

10

will be redacted to show only their last four digits, consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(a)(1).

11

Plaintiff will provide redacted versions of Trial Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 68, 126, 127, 129,

12

149, 225, 230, 234, 234A, 307, 310, 324, 371D, and 371F. CDCR will provide redacted versions

13

of Trial Exhibits 174-221, 223-224, 371 and 380.

14
15

2.

The Court shall substitute the redacted versions for the original exhibits, and seal

the originals.

16

3.

In the interests of creating a clear record for purposes of appeal, and consistent

17

with its finding that the invalid SSN once used by the Plaintiff was not issued to anyone by the

18

Social Security Administration until 2004 (Doc. No. 263, 4:12), the Court shall enter an order

19

deeming that the five (or three) digits denoted by “xxx-xx,” “x-xxxx”, or “xxx” at Welch at RT

20

307:24, 313:24, 314:14, 322:14-22, 323:1, and 336:4 are the same as the first five (or first three)

21

digits of “xxx-xx-6544” where those appear in the admitted trial exhibits.1

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

1

As the Court will recall, Plaintiff offered the testimony of private investigator Kendall
Welch to demonstrate that the invalid SSN (xxx-xx-6544) that the Plaintiff had used before he
obtained his own SSN (Welch at RT 306:21) had not been issued by the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) until March 2004 at the earliest. Welch at RT 305-12. As part of her
testimony, Ms. Welch referred to a printout from the SSA’s website, admitted into evidence as
Trial Exhibit 24E, that listed the first five digits of the SSNs that had not been issued by the SSA
until March 2004. One of the five-digit sequences listed on the website matched the first five
digits of the invalid SSN that Plaintiff had previously used. Welch at RT 313:16-314:20. Since
all SSNs appearing in admitted exhibits (including the invalid SSN) will be redacted of their first
five digits, the proposed clarifying order of the Court is needed to indicate that the first five
{00450485.DOCX}

1

[3:13-cv-05671-WHA]

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING REDACTION OF TRIAL
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

1

A proposed order is appended hereto.

2
3

Dated: October 7, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

4

Christopher Ho
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY –
EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER

5
6
7
By:

8

____________/s/Christopher Ho___________
CHRISTOPHER HO

9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
VICTOR GUERRERO

10
11
12

Dated: October 7, 2015

Miguel A. Neri
Fiel D. Tigno
Christopher M. Young

13
14
15
By:

16
17

____________/s/Fiel D. Tigno
FIEL D. TIGNO

.

Attorneys for Defendant CDCR and Individual
CDCR Defendants

18
19
20

Dated: October 7, 2015

Alvin Gittisriboongul
Dorothy Bacskai Egel

21
22
23
By:
24
25

____________/s/Dorothy Backsai Egel_______
DOROTHY BACSKAI EGEL
Attorneys for Defendant SPB and Individual SPB
Defendants

26
27
28
29
30
31
32

digits of the invalid SSN correspond to one of the relevant five-digit sequences from the SSA’s
website printout.
{00450485.DOCX}

2

[3:13-cv-05671-WHA]

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING REDACTION OF TRIAL
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Good cause appearing, the stipulation of the parties concerning the redaction of

3

personally identifying information from the exhibits admitted into evidence at trial is approved.

4

Accordingly:

5

1.

By December 4, 2015, the parties shall provide the Court with versions of all

6

admitted exhibits redacted of personal (as opposed to business) names, addresses, telephone

7

numbers, email addresses, birth dates, drivers’ license numbers, and passport numbers.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Additionally, all Social Security numbers and financial account numbers on the admitted exhibits
will be redacted to show only their last four digits, consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(a)(1).
Plaintiff will provide redacted versions of Trial Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 68, 126, 127, 129,
149, 225, 230, 234, 234A, 307, 310, 324, 371D, and 371F. CDCR will provide redacted versions

of Trial Exhibits 174-221, 223-224, 371 and 380.
2.

The Court shall substitute the redacted versions for the original exhibits, and seal

the originals.
3.

The five (or three) digits denoted by “xxx-xx,” “x-xxxx”, or “xxx” at Welch at RT

307:24, 313:24, 314:14, 322:14-22, 323:1, and 336:4 are the same as the first five (or first three)
digits of “xxx-xx-6544” where those appear in the admitted trial exhibits.

18
19

SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:_____________________
October 8, 2015.

22
23

______________________________________
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

{00450485.DOCX}

3

[3:13-cv-05671-WHA]

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING REDACTION OF TRIAL
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE