Tilei v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Filing 96

ORDER CLARIFYING DISCOVERY ORDER (Dkt. No.83) re 94 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed by B. Jeffery, Meyer, Ingram, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, A. Alton, G. Ramey, Sanchez, 95 Order on Motion for M iscellaneous Relief, 92 MOTION Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge re 90 Discovery Order filed by Punaofo Tsugito Tilei. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 11/8/2017. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PUNAOFO TSUGITO TILEI,

Case No. 12-cv-01688-PJH (MEJ)

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER CLARIFYING DISCOVERY
ORDER (DKT. NO. 83)

v.
9
10
11

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 92, 94, 95

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On August 11, 2017, Plaintiff Punaofo Tsugito Tilei (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants

14

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), A. Ingram, B. Jeffery, A.

15

Alton, A. Meyer, J. Sanchez, and G. Ramey (collectively “Defendants”), submitted a joint letter

16

brief addressing the parties’ discovery disputes. Ltr. Br., Dkt. No. 76; Am. Ltr. Br., Dkt. No. 80.

17

The Court heard oral argument on August 31, 2017. Aug. 31, 2017 Minute Entry, Dkt. No. 84.

18

Also on August 31, 2017, in response to Plaintiff’s discovery request, the Court ordered

19

Defendants to “produce, for in camera review, any and all documents relating to the investigation

20

of the Defendant Correctional Officers, or to their discipline, for incidents similar to those alleged

21

in the Complaint” so the Court could ascertain whether the incidents described in the requested

22

documents are sufficiently similar to warrant production of the documents to Plaintiff. First

23

Discovery Order, Dkt. No. 83. Defendants produced the files, and this Court conducted its review.

24

Defs.’ Not. of Lodgment of Confidential Privileged Docs. for In-Camera Review, Dkt. No. 85.

25

On September 28, 2017, the Court ordered Defendants to produce to Plaintiff a redacted version of

26

one portion of the reviewed files. Second Discovery Order, Dkt. No. 90. The Court also

27

cautioned Plaintiff against using this relevant discovery for an inadmissible purpose going

28

forward. Id. at 3:15-21.

1

On Oct
tober 12, 201 Plaintiff filed a Moti on for Relie from this C
17,
ef
Court’s Augu 31, 2017
ust
7

2

and September 28, 2017 Discovery Ord
d
r
ders. Mot. f Relief, D No. 92. Plaintiff ass
for
Dkt.
serted that, in
n

3

its August 31st Order, the Court erred in not orderi Defenda to produ for review any
t
C
i
ing
ants
uce
w

4

doc
cuments rela to the tw nurse Def
ated
wo
fendants. Pl
laintiff also asserted that in its Septe
t,
ember 28th

5

Ord the Cou erred by only ordering Defendant to produce to Plaintiff documents that were
der,
urt
o
g
ts
e
fs
s

6

bot relevant and admissib contrary to the discov
th
a
ble,
very standar set forth in the Feder Rules of
rds
ral

7

Civ Procedure.
vil

8

vember 3, 20 the Pres
017,
siding Judge issued an O
e
Order denyin Plaintiff’s motion as it
ng
s
On Nov
rela to this Court’s Sept
ated
C
tember 28th Order. Orde for Clarifi
er
fication, Dkt. No. 95. In the Order,

10

the Presiding Ju
e
udge also di
irected this Court to clari whether its August 3 Order w meant to
C
ify
31st
was

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

app to all Defendants. Id at 6. If it was not, this Court is to order produ
ply
d.
w
s
uction of reco related
ords

12

to the nurse defendants for in camera in
t
nspection. I
Id.

13

The Co is aware that, when Defendants p
ourt
D
produced rec
cords on Sep
ptember 7, 2
2017 for in

14

cam review, Defendants made a par
mera
s
rtial producti of docum
ion
ments related to Defenda Nurse A.
d
ant
.

15

Alt
ton. However, given tha this Court’s August 31 order wa not clear, t Court OR
at
1st
as
the
RDERS

16

De
efendants to file a declara
f
ation, no late than Nove
er
ember 17, 20
017, stating w
whether they produced
y

17

for in camera review all pe
r
r
ertinent recor related to Defendant Nurses A. A
rds
o
t
Alton and A. Ingram; in

18

add
dition, if Def
fendants did not previou produce those record Defendan shall pro
d
usly
ds,
nts
oduce those

19

rec
cords for in camera revie by the sam date.
c
ew
me

20

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

21
22
23
24

Da
ated: Novemb 8, 2017
ber
___
__________
___________
__________
________
MA
ARIA-ELEN JAMES
NA
Un
nited States M
Magistrate Ju
udge

25
26
27
28
2