Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 1368

ORDER re The Parties' Discovery Letter briefs (dkts. 1334-3, 1364-3, 1366-1). For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' requests to compel the lifting of certain redactions are DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 10/08/2020. (rmilc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

TODD ASHKER, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 09-cv-05796-CW (RMI)
ORDER ON THE PARTIES’
DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS

v.
MATHEW CATE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1334-3, 1364-3, 1366-1

Defendants.

13
14

Now pending before the court is a jointly-filed discovery letter brief through which

15

Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants to lift certain redactions. See Joint Ltr. Br. (dkt. 1334-3

16

*SEALED*). The Parties’ disagreements about the propriety of Defendants’ redactions boil down

17

to five discrete matters concerning redacted information found in confidential memoranda (“CM”)

18

and corresponding transcripts which memorialized confidential source (“CS”) interviews

19

underlying various disciplinary matters. The first three disputes pertain to redactions found in a

20

CM and corresponding transcript from February of 2020. Id. at 3-7. The fourth dispute is related to

21

redactions found in a CM and corresponding transcript from November of 2017. Id. at 7-12. The

22

fifth dispute relates to redactions found in a CM and corresponding transcript from December of

23

2019. Id. at 12-14. Having reviewed all of the materials in question without redactions in camera,

24

the undersigned rules as follows.

25

In Dispute #1, Plaintiffs seek the lifting of redactions because the CM indicates a CS

26

provided information about two alleged prison gang members reportedly ordering an assault that

27

occurred two weeks prior to the interview, but complain that Defendants’ redactions make it

28

impossible to confirm the CS’s account (see id. at 3). Having reviewed the un-redacted materials,

1

the undersigned finds that the redactions are proper, and that the CM’s account is in fact supported

2

by the interview transcript. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a lifting of these redactions is

3

DENIED.

4

In Dispute #2, Plaintiffs submit that the CM indicates the CS also provided info that the

5

same two alleged prison gang members reportedly ordered the assault of another prisoner due to a

6

drug debt but that redactions make it impossible to confirm who the CS claimed ordered the

7

assault and to whom the CS claimed the debt was owed (see id. at 4-5). Following oral argument,

8

the undersigned reserved ruling on this issue while directing Plaintiffs to file a supplemental letter

9

along with any necessary Rules Violation Reports (“RVR”) such that it could be determined on
whose behalf the lifting of these redactions was being argued – that is, whether the alleged

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ordering of this assault due to a purported drug debt had resulted in discipline. Plaintiffs then filed

12

a supplemental letter (see Pls.’ Supp. Ltr. Br. (dkt. 1364-3 *SEALED*) at 1-2) along with a RVR

13

packet (see RVR Packet (dkt. 1364-4 *SEALED*) pertaining to one of the two prisoners named

14

by the CS in the above-described CM. However, it appears that the subject of the RVR packet

15

provided by Plaintiffs pertains to a different episode of assault (with a different victim) from what

16

was described above in Dispute #2 as presented in the Parties’ joint letter brief. Accordingly,

17

having reviewed the RVR submitted by Plaintiffs, as well as the entirety of the un-redacted

18

materials submitted by Defendants for in camera review, the undersigned finds that there is no

19

connection or overlap between the above-described account (in Dispute #2) given by the CM

20

pertaining to this prisoner and the disciplinary matter described in the RVR packet provided by

21

Plaintiffs. Thus, since Plaintiffs have not shown that the prisoner in question was in fact

22

disciplined based on the particular account given by the CM in the context of Dispute #2,

23

Plaintiffs’ request for the lifting of these redactions has no traction. In any event, having reviewed

24

the un-redacted materials, the undersigned finds that the redactions are proper, and that the CM’s

25

account (as it pertains to a gang-nexus as well as in other respects) is in fact supported by the un-

26

redacted interview transcript and audio recording. Accordingly, for the above-stated reasons,

27

Plaintiffs’ request for a lifting of these redactions is DENIED.

28
2

1

In Dispute #3, Plaintiffs contend that the CM indicates that the CS claimed that the

2

relevant prison gang’s rules require a one-third share of all narcotics brought into the facility to be

3

given to one of the previously-named alleged prison gang members as well as another individual

4

whose name is redacted; and, while the corresponding transcript does not appear to Plaintiffs to

5

support the statement, the redactions make it reportedly impossible for Plaintiffs to confirm the

6

account in the CM (see Joint Ltr. Br. (dkt. 1334-3 *SEALED*) at 5-7). Having reviewed the un-

7

redacted materials, the undersigned finds that the redactions are proper, and that the CM’s account

8

is in fact supported by the interview transcript. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for a lifting of

9

these redactions is DENIED.

10

In Dispute #4, Plaintiffs submit that a CM describes an interview with a CS in which five

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

specific details are provided about an assault that was also captured on video; Plaintiffs contend

12

that the corresponding transcript is too heavily redacted to confirm whether the CS provided each

13

of the five specific details enumerated in the CM (see id. at 7-12). For the same reason as was the

14

case with Dispute #2, the undersigned directed Plaintiffs to submit a supplemental letter and any

15

associated RVR packets in connection with this dispute as well. In their supplemental letter (see

16

Pls.’ Supp. Ltr. Br. (dkt. 1364-3 *SEALED*) at 1-2), Plaintiffs note that while video was relied on

17

to establish the prisoners’ involvement in the assault in question in Dispute #4, Plaintiffs submit

18

that the CS’s account was relied on to stablish that murder was the goal and that the attack was

19

gang-related. Id. at 2. Having reviewed the un-redacted materials, the undersigned finds that the

20

redactions are proper, and that the CM’s account is supported by the interview transcript of the CS

21

as to the five particular details mentioned above, as well as the facts that the assault in question

22

was indeed gang-related and that the objective of the attack was to try to kill the victim.

23

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for a lifting of these redactions is DENIED.

24

In Dispute #5, Plaintiffs argue that a CM describes confidential interviews with 7 prisoners

25

about an altercation involving multiple prisoners in which a person identified as “CS #4”

26

reportedly identifies a certain prisoner as having run towards the altercation in order to participate

27

therein, however Plaintiffs submit that Defendants’ redactions make that impossible to confirm

28

(see Joint Ltr. Br. (dkt. 1334-3 *SEALED*) at 12-14). Having reviewed the un-redacted materials,
3

1

the undersigned finds that the redactions are proper, and that the CM’s account is in fact supported

2

by the interview transcript. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for a lifting of these redactions is

3

DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2020

6
7
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

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
4