Saddozai v. Bolanos et al

Filing 83

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER; GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS; GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION; TERMINATING OTHER MOTIONS by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tsh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

SHIKEB SADDOZAI,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
A. ARQUEZA,

15
16

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-03972 BLF (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER;
GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS; GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION;
TERMINATING OTHER MOTIONS
(Docket Nos. 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 75)

17
18

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was reopened on remand, and deceased Defendant A. Arqueza

20

has been substituted by his successor, Ms. Terry Arqueza, in this action. Dkt. Nos. 50, 52.

21

On October 21, 2022, Defendant filed an administrative motion for entry of

22

protective order, Dkt. No. 65, and the proposed protective order, Dkt. No. 66. On

23

November 14, 2022, Defendant filed notice of Plaintiff’s non-opposition to their motion.

24

Dkt. No. 14. On November 15, 2022, Defendant filed an administrative motion to seal

25

documents in support of their summary judgment motion and renewed motion for

26

protective order. Dkt. Nos. 69, 70. At the same time, Defendants filed a motion for

27

summary judgment. Dkt. No. 71.

28

Because it appeared that Plaintiff was out to court and may not have received his

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 6

1

latest mail, Dkt. No. 67, the Court allowed the matter to remain pending for Plaintiff to

2

return and respond to the latest filings. Plaintiff did so on December 2, 2022, by filing a

3

motion for an extension of time to file opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment and

4

request for judicial notice, Dkt. No. 75, and an opposition to Defendant’s proposed

5

protective order, Dkt. No. 76. Defendant filed opposition to Plaintiff’s request for an

6

extension of time, Dkt. No. 78, and a reply to their motion for entry of protective order,

7

Dkt. Nos. 79. The Court addresses these pending motions below.

8

DISCUSSION

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

A.

Motion for Entry of Protective Order

11

Defendant requests that the Court adopt their proposed Protective Order pursuant to

12

Local Rule 7-11, so that Defendant may designate and produce certain confidential records

13

in discovery to Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 65 at 2. Defendant states that some of the discovery

14

Plaintiff seeks include sensitive information related to the non-public, detailed operations

15

of Maguire Correctional Facility, including records that may disclose confidential details

16

about jail staffing, facility layouts, and security procedures. Id. Defendant reached out to

17

Plaintiff by mail, asking if he would stipulate to use the Court’s model Stipulated

18

Protective Order. Trela Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A; Dkt. No. 65-1. Defendant’s counsel indicated

19

that if she did not hear from Plaintiff by October 21, 2022, she would move the Court to

20

implement the model protective order so she could produce confidential records in

21

discovery. Id. When she did not hear from Plaintiff, counsel proceeded to file the instant

22

request on October 21, 2022.

23

The Court notes that on October 29, 2022, mail sent to Plaintiff was returned as

24

undeliverable, with the notation, “Inmate out to court.” Dkt. No. 67. This is confirmed by

25

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time filed on December 2, 2022, wherein he states he

26

was transported from prison to San Mateo Superior Court on or about October 13, 2022,

27

and then returned on October 24, 2022. Dkt. No. 75 at 3. Plaintiff also filed an opposition

28
2

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 6

1

to Defendant’s request for entry of protective order. Dkt. No. 76. He asserts that when he

2

returned, the facility was placed on a 7-day lockdown until November 2022. Id. at 4. He

3

moves the Court for an order compelling production of discovery, including documents,

4

video surveillance, and admissions. Id. at 1-2. It appears that Plaintiff is unclear about the

5

purpose of the protective order. As Defendant points out in reply, Plaintiff simply

6

contends that he should be given access to responsive documents, on which point

7

Defendant agrees. Dkt. No. 79 at 2.
Federal Rule of Civil procedure 26(c) provides that a party “from whom discovery

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8
9

is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending.” The

10

Court finds good cause exists due to the confidential and sensitive nature of some of the

11

documents requested in discovery to grant the request. Defendant submits the Northern

12

District of California’s Model Protective Order, Dkt. No. 65-1, and states that he will

13

follow appropriate procedures under Local Rule 79-5 and Standing Order § 5 and properly

14

move to seal any confidential records that it intends to file on the docket. Dkt. No. 65 at 2.

15

Defendant has done so, having since filed an administrative motion to seal documents in

16

support of his motion for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 69, 70. Accordingly, Defendant’s

17

motion for entry of protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 65.

18

The Court will adopt Defendant’s proposed order submitted with their motion. Dkt. No.

19

66
Plaintiff is advised that the protective order does not interfere with his right to

20
21

discovery. It merely requires that Plaintiff comply with the procedures set forth in the

22

protective order with regard to any protected material provided to him by Defendant.

23

Accordingly, he must abide by the protective order throughout and after final disposition

24

of this action. Dkt. No. 66.

25

B.

26
27

Motion to Seal Documents
Consistent with his motion for entry of a protective order, Defendant filed an

administrative motion to seal documents in support of his motion for summary judgment.

28
3

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/17/23 Page 4 of 6

1

Dkt. No. 70. The request is made on the basis that: (1) Plaintiff’s medical information is

2

presumptively entitled to privacy, subject to Plaintiff’s decision to waive those protections

3

(Exs. 1-7); (2) the law enforcement officer personnel history information is entitled to

4

protection as official information (Ex. 8); and (3) the jail surveillance footage would pose

5

an institutional security risk if publicly disclosed and would violate the privacy of third-

6

party inmates (Ex. 9). Id. at 2. Defendant seeks to designate the law enforcement officers’

7

personnel history information and jail surveillance footage as confidential under the

8

protective order and will serve the sealed version of those exhibits on Plaintiff once the

9

protective order is in place. Id. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to this motion.
The Court has considered Defendant’s motion, including the exhibits at issue

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11

submitted for in camera review, and the declarations of Lt. D. Guiney of the San Mateo

12

County Sheriff’s Office and Deputy County Attorney Sarah H. Trela filed in support of

13

Defendant’s sealing request. Dkt. Nos. 69-1, et seq. Defendant has established that there

14

are compelling reasons that outweigh disclosure to the public. See L.R. 79-5(b), (g).

15

Accordingly, Defendant’s administrative motion to file the specified exhibits under seal is

16

GRANTED. Dkt. No. 70. Defendant shall serve the sealed copies on Plaintiff.

17

C.

18

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time and Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file opposition to Defendant’s

19

summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 75. He requests an extension until February 28,

20

2023. Id. at 4. Plaintiff also requests the Court take judicial notice of grievances he filed

21

while in the custody of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s office. Id. at 4. Defendant objects

22

to such a lengthy extension of time and suggests that 30 days would be appropriate under

23

the circumstances. Dkt. No. 78 at 2. Defendant also objects to the Court taking judicial

24

notice of unauthenticated pages of matters that are unrelated both to the claims in this

25

action and Plaintiff’s need for an extension of time. Id.

26
27

The Court need not take judicial notice of the papers provided with Plaintiff’s
motion as they are irrelevant to his motion and beyond the scope of this action.

28
4

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/17/23 Page 5 of 6

1

Accordingly, that request is DENIED. On the other hand, good cause appearing,

2

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant shall file

3

notice that he has served Plaintiff with the sealed versions of the exhibits in support of his

4

summary judgment in the time provided below. Plaintiff’s opposition shall be due twenty-

5

eight days thereafter.

6

CONCLUSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

9

1.

Defendant’s motion for entry of protective order is GRANTED. Dkt. No.

10

65. The Court shall adopt the proposed protective order submitted by Defendant. Dkt. No.

11

66. Defendant’s notice of non-opposition shall be terminated as a motion. Dkt. No. 68.
2.

12
13

Defendant’s motion to seal documents in support of his motion for summary

judgment is GRANTED. Dkt. Nos. 69, 70.
3.

14

Defendant shall serve Plaintiff with a copy of the sealed exhibits in support

15

of his summary judgment motion no later than seven (7) days from the date this order is

16

filed. On the same day, Defendant shall file notice with the Court that he has done so with

17

a copy of the certificate of service.
3.

18
19

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file opposition to Defendant’s

summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART. Dkt. No. 75.

20

Plaintiff’s opposition shall be due no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the

21

date Defendant files notice of service of the sealed exhibits discussed above on Plaintiff.

22

Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED.
4.

23
24

Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.
This order terminates Docket Nos. 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, and 75.

25
26

///

27

///

28
5

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 83 Filed 01/17/23 Page 6 of 6

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: __January 17, 2023____

________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

3
4
5
6
7
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

Order Granting Protective Order; to Seal; Terminating Other Mots.
PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\03972Saddozai_prot.order&seal_eot-opp

26
27
28
6