Williams v. Williams

Filing 78

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS 7/28/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER. Signed by Judge Beeler on 7/29/2011. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
ISAIAH N. WILLIAMS,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 07-04464 CW (LB)
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S 7/28/2011
DISCOVERY LETTER

13
D. WILLIAMS,

[ECF No. 77]

14
15
16

Defendant.
_____________________________________/
Defendant Debra Williams alleges that Plaintiff Isaiah Williams filed a page of Pelican Bay State

17

Prison’s use-of-force policy that was marked as “Confidential” under the terms of the protective

18

order signed by Plaintiff and ordered by the court. July 28, 2011 Letter from Defendant, ECF No.

19

77 at 2.1 The page at issue was filed as Exhibit C in Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for

20

summary judgment (ECF No. 76 at 37). Id. Defendant asks the court to order the document

21

immediately removed from the public record. Id.

22

Here, the court ordered Defendant to produce the use-of-force policy only if Plaintiff signed the

23

protective order at ECF No. 63-1. Third Discovery Order, ECF No. 65 at 6. The district court also

24

ordered Plaintiff to sign the protective order. Order, ECF No. 71 at 8. Section 12.3 of the protective

25

order prohibits a party from filing in the public record any protected material without written

26
27
1

28

Citations are to the Clerk’s Electronic Case File (ECF) with pin cites to numbers at the top
(as opposed to the bottom) of the page.
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S 7/28/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER
C 07-04464 CW (LB)

1

permission from the other party or a court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested

2

persons. Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 71-1 at 7. The page from Pelican Bay State Prison’s

3

use-of-force policy was appropriately designated “Confidential.” See Third Discovery Order, ECF

4

No. 65 at 5-6. Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff should not have filed his opposition with the

5

confidential page in the public record.

6

Accordingly, the court directs the clerk of the court to remove the use-of-force policy page from

7

Plaintiff’s opposition (ECF No. 76 at 37) from the public record and to re-file it under seal. See

8

Jones v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. C-08-03971-JW (DMR), 2010 WL 4055928, at *6 (N.D.

9

Cal. Oct. 15, 2010) (“[B]ased on its inherent powers, a court may strike material from the docket,
including portions of a document, reflecting procedural impropriety or lack of compliance with court

11

rules or orders.”).

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
Dated: July 29, 2011
14

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S 7/28/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER
C 07-04464 CW (LB)

2