Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 1620

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' request [1617-3] to modify Paragraph 38 of the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 04/07/2022. (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2022)

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 LETTER BRIEFF RE:
REDACTION PROTOCOLS

v.
MATHEW CATE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1617-3

Defendants.

13
14

Now pending before the court is a discovery dispute letter brief pertaining to the redaction

15

protocol found at ¶ 38 of the Settlement Agreement (“SA”) (see dkt. 424-2 at 17) in this case.

16

Plaintiffs seek an order from the undersigned that would have the effect of modifying the

17

provisions of ¶ 38 (see Ltr. Br. (dkt. 1617-3 at 2-4), to which Defendants have voiced their

18

opposition (id. at 4-6). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s request is denied.

19

Paragraph 38 of the Settlement Agreement provides that “[a]ny and all confidential

20

information provided shall be produced in redacted form where necessary, be designated as

21

‘Attorneys Eyes Only’ as defined in the protective order in this case, and shall be subject to the

22

protective order.” SA (dkt. 424-2) at 17. Paragraph 38 goes on to state that any disputes regarding

23

data and document production shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the dispute

24

resolution provisions found in ¶¶ 52 and 53 of the SA. Id. Plaintiffs now find themselves

25

displeased with this provision and seek a modification because, as Plaintiffs put it: “the existing

26

approach has proven unworkable for Plaintiffs and unnecessarily expensive for the State.” See Ltr.

27

Br. (dkt. 1617-3) at 2. Defendants disagree and note that they “would not have agreed to the

28

Settlement Agreement if it were not for these safeguards in place for the production of confidential

1

documents . . . and the resources expended are justified given the real safety and security issues at

2

stake . . . [and] [t]herefore, the Court should order the parties to follow the existing procedure in

3

the Settlement Agreement . . .” Id. at 4, 6. Plaintiff’s unilateral suggestion for modifying the SA is

4

as follows:

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

[W]e believe it is necessary to revisit how CDCR can redact
confidential information and how the parties will proceed if Plaintiffs
have concerns with those redactions. Plaintiffs propose that CDCR
may continue to produce redacted versions of confidential documents,
however, within relevant pages[,] redactions shall only be made for
source-identifying information, not for the purpose of excluding other
prisoner names or irrelevant information. (If an entire page is
irrelevant, Plaintiffs agree it may be redacted.). Plaintiffs will review
this redacted material and may request that a subset of the material
will be produced without any redactions. Upon this request,
Defendants will produce the pages in question, designated Attorneys’
Eyes Only, without redactions. Plaintiffs will only request unredacted
documents upon a good-faith belief that it is necessary for an adequate
review of the material.
Id. at 3.

13

If this proposal was the subject of a joint stipulation, that would be another matter.

14

However, Plaintiffs’ request for a court order retrospectively modifying the Settlement Agreement

15

over Defendants’ objection is simply untenable. Neither is the undersigned empowered, nor at all

16

inclined, to modify the Parties’ agreement on Plaintiffs’ suggestion and over Defendants’

17

objection. Going forward, Plaintiffs should take care to only advance requests for which the

18

Settlement Agreement provides a basis – or, in the alternative, Plaintiffs’ should seek Defendants’

19

agreement in the form of a stipulation. Requests such as this, untethered as they are from the

20

Settlement Agreement, and unattended with citations to authority, are a waste of judicial resources

21

as well as being a waste of the Parties’ time. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2022

24
25
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
2