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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?