Johnson v. Figueroa et al

Filing 132

ORDER following in camera review of documents re 126 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 3/14/12. (lao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHARLES JOHNSON,

11

14

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

Plaintiff,

12
13

Civil No.

v.
ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA
REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS

A. FIGUEROA et al.,
Defendants.

[ECF No. 126]

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On February 10, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 126) and
submitted Defendants’ personnel records for the Court’s in camera review. Federal policy regarding
discovery is liberal. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, parties may obtain discovery of “any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“The [r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The Court has reviewed
Defendants’ personnel records in camera and has engaged in the balancing test required by Miller v.
Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Cal. 1992), Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227 (S.D.
Cal. 1993), and Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987), weighing the potential
benefits against the potential disadvantages of disclosure.
The parties have agreed to an “attorneys-eyes only” protective order and procedure to protect
private information. Subject to the parties’ “attorneys-eyes only” protective order, the Court hereby
orders Defendants produce documents as follows.
-1-

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

1

A.

Defendant Davis

2

1.

Report of Performance (March 2010 - March 2011)

3

With regard to Defendant Davis’ Report of Performance, dated March 2010 through March

4

2011, the Court finds that although the evaluation rates Defendant Davis on “Supervising, Escorting,

5

and Transporting,” the time period at issue is so remote that it is not relevant to the issues of this

6

case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of Defendant Davis’ Report of Performance is

7

hereby DENIED.

8

Moreover, with regard to the Rainbow Report and training documents attached to Defendant

9

Davis’ Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of this

10

case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of the remaining pages of this document is

11

hereby DENIED.

12

2.

13

As to Defendant Davis’ Report of Performance, dated March 2009 through March 2010, the

Report of Performance (March 2009 - March 2010)

14

Court finds that although the evaluation rates Defendant Davis on “Supervising, Escorting, and

15

Transporting,” the time period at issue is so remote that it is not relevant to the issues of this case.

16

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of Defendant Davis’ Report of Performance is

17

hereby DENIED.

18

Moreover, with regard to the Rainbow Report and training documents attached to Defendant

19

Davis’ Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of this

20

case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of the remaining pages of this document is

21

hereby DENIED.

22

3.

23

Defendant Davis’ Report of Performance, dated September 1, 2007 through September 1,

Report of Performance (September 2007 - September 2008)

24

2008, covers a time period relevant to the issues of this case and includes Davis’ evaluation for

25

“Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting.” The Court further finds that Davis’ training records are

26

relevant to the issues of this case. Based thereon, Defendants shall produce pages 37-38 and 49-52

27

of this document on or before March 30, 2012.

28

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report, the Court finds this document is not relevant to
-2-

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

1

the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of pages 39-48 is hereby

2

DENIED.

3

4.

4

Defendant Davis’ Report of Performance, dated March 1, 2006 through March 1, 2007,

Report of Performance (March 2006 - March 2007)

5

covers a time period relevant to the issues of this case and includes Davis’ evaluation for

6

“Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting.” The Court further finds that Davis’ training records are

7

relevant to the issues of this case. Based thereon, Defendants shall produce pages 53-54 and 61-63

8

of this document on or before March 30, 2012.

9

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to Davis’

10

Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of this case.

11

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of pages 64-70 is hereby DENIED.

12

5.

13

Defendant Davis’ Report of Performance, dated June 1, 2004 through June 1, 2005, covers a

Report of Performance (June 2004 - June 2005)

14

time period relevant to the issues of this case and includes Davis’ evaluation for “Supervising,

15

Escorting, and Transporting.” The Court further finds that Davis’ training records are relevant to the

16

issues of this case. Based thereon, Defendants shall produce pages 71-74 and 81-83 of this

17

document on or before March 30, 2012.

18

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to Davis’

19

Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of this case.

20

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of pages 75-80 is hereby DENIED.

21

6.

Report of Performance (May 2003 - August 2003)

22

As to Defendant Davis’ Report of Performance, dated May 5, 2003 through August 22, 2003,

23

the Court finds that it covers a time period relevant to the issues of this case and includes Davis’

24

evaluation for “Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting.” The Court further finds that Davis’

25

training records are relevant to the issues of this case. Based thereon, Defendants shall produce page

26

84 on or before March 30, 2012.

27

//

28

//
-3-

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

1

B.

Defendant Figueroa

2

1.

Letter of Instruction

3

The Court finds Defendant A. Figueroa’s Letter of Introduction concerns issues that are not

4

relevant to this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the production of this document is hereby

5

DENIED.

6

2.

7

The Court finds Defendant A. Figueroa’s transcript from Concorde Career College is

8

relevant to issues of her training and knowledge. Therefore, Defendants shall produce page 88 on or

9

before March 30, 2012. However, the Court finds the remaining pages of the transcript are not

Transcript

10

relevant to the instant action. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for the production of pages 87 and 89-91 is

11

hereby DENIED.

12

3.

13

Defendant Figueroa’s Report of Performance, dated November 2007 through November

Report of Performance (November 2007 - November 2008)

14

2008, covers a time period relevant to the issues of this case and includes Figueroa’s evaluation for

15

“Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting.” The Court further finds that Figueroa’s training records

16

are relevant to the issues of this case. Based thereon, Defendants shall produce pages 92-96 on or

17

before March 30, 2012.

18

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to

19

Figueroa’s Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of

20

this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of pages 97-106 is hereby DENIED.

21

4.

Report of Performance (November 2008 - November 2009)

22

As to Defendant A. Figueroa’s Report of Performance, dated November 2008 through

23

November 2009, the Court finds this document covers a time period relevant to the issues of this

24

case and includes Figueroa’s evaluation for “Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting.” The Court

25

further finds that Figueroa’s training records are relevant to the issues of this case. Based thereon,

26

Defendants shall produce pages 107-108 and 115-117 on or before March 30, 2012.

27

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to

28

Figueroa’s Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of
-4-

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

1

this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of pages 109-114 and 118-122 is hereby

2

DENIED.

3

5.

4

The Court finds Defendant Figueroa’s nursing licenses are directly relevant to her training

Licenses

5

and knowledge. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce pages 123-131 on or before March 30,

6

2012.

7

C.

Defendant Hjerpe

8

1.

9

The Court finds Defendant D. Hjerpe’s Medical Board of California certifications directly

Certifications

10

relevant to his training and knowledge. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce pages 132-133 on or

11

before March 30, 2012.

12

2.

13

With regard to Defendant D. Hjerpe’s Individual Development Plan, dated August 1, 2011,

Individual Development Plan (August 1, 2011)

14

the Court finds that the time period at issue is so remote that the evaluation is not relevant to the

15

issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of this document is hereby

16

DENIED.

17

Moreover, with regard to the Rainbow Report and training documents attached to Defendant

18

Figueroa’s Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of

19

this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of the remaining pages of this document

20

is hereby DENIED.

21

3.

Individual Development Plan (May 1, 2010)

22

With regard to Defendant D. Hjerpe’s Individual Development Plan, dated August 1, 2011,

23

and the attached Employee Attendance Summary and training records, the Court finds that the time

24

period at issue is so remote that the evaluation is not relevant to the issues of this case. Therefore,

25

Plaintiff’s request for the production of this document is hereby DENIED.

26

4.

27

As to Defendant Hjerpe’s Report of Performance for a Probationary Employee, dated April

28

Report of Performance (April 2010)

27, 2010, the Court finds that the time period at issue is so remote that the evaluation is not relevant
-5-

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

1

to the issues of this case. Moreover, the Court finds the Calipatria State Prison Discrimination

2

Complaint Policy, Sexual Harassment Policy and the additional Work Practices regarding injuries

3

and illnesses are not relevant to the issues of this case. Based thereon, Plaintiff’s request for the

4

production of pages 155-156 and 159-167 is hereby DENIED.

5

However, the Court finds the Chief Physician and Surgeon Duty Statement is directly

6

relevant to Defendant Hjerpe’s training and knowledge. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce

7

pages 157 and 158 on or before March 30, 2012.

8

5.

9

As to Defendant Hjerpe’s Report of Performance for a Probationary Employee, dated

10

January 19, 2010, the Court finds that the time period at issue is so remote that the evaluation is not

11

relevant to the issues of this case. In addition, the Court finds the Employee Attendance Summary,

12

Calipatria State Prison Discrimination Complaint Policy, Sexual Harassment Policy and the

13

additional Work Practices regarding injuries and illnesses are not relevant to the issues of this case.

14

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of pages 168 and 171-180 is hereby DENIED.

15

Report of Performance (January 2010)

However, the Court finds the Chief Physician and Surgeon Duty Statement is directly

16

relevant to Defendant Hjerpe’s training and knowledge. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce

17

pages 169 and 170 on or before March 30, 2012.

18

6.

19

Defendant Hjerpe’s Individual Development Plan, dated June 8, 2009, covers a time period

20

relevant to the issues of this case. The Court also finds the Duty Summary directly relevant to this

21

matter. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce pages 181-184 on or before March 30, 2012.

Individual Development Plan (2009)

Conversely, the Court finds the Calipatria State Prison Discrimination Complaint Policy,

22
23

Sexual Harassment Policy and the additional Work Practices regarding injuries and illnesses are not

24

relevant to the issues of this case. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for the production of pages 185-195 is

25

hereby DENIED.

26

D.

Defendant Orduno

27

1.

Job Performance Records

28

The Court finds the Memoranda relating to Defendant E. Orduno’s job performance, dated
-6-

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

1

September 28, 1994 and August 19, 1994, directly relevant to the issues of this case. The Court also

2

finds the California State Personnel Board Decision, dated April 30, 2001, relevant to the issues of

3

this case. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce pages 194-211 on or before March 30, 2012.

4

2.

Duty Statement

5

The Court finds the Registered Nurse Duty Statement relevant to Defendant Orduno’s

6

knowledge and training. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce pages 212-218 on or before March

7

30, 2012.

8

3.

9

Defendant Orduno’s Individual Development Plan, dated February 9, 2011, relevant to the

Individual Development Plan (2011)

10

issues of this case. The Court further finds the attached Registered Nurse Duty Statement relevant to

11

Defendant Orduno’s knowledge and training. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce pages 219-224

12

on or before March 30, 2012.

13

However, the Court finds that the Code of Safe Work Practices and Calipatria State Prison

14

Discrimination Complaint Policy are not relevant to the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

15

request for the production of pages 225- 227is hereby DENIED.

16

4.

17

Orduno’s Annual Audit of Training, dated March 1, 2009 through February 28, 2010, also is

18

relevant to her knowledge and training. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce pages 228-229 on or

19

before March 30, 2012.

20

Annual Audit of Training (March 2009 - February 2010)

Conversely, the Court finds the Medical Department Rainbow Sheet attached to the Annual

21

Audit of Training is not relevant to the instant action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the

22

production of pages 230-231 is hereby DENIED.

23

5.

Individual Development Plan (June 2009)

24

With regard to Defendant Orduno’s Individual Development Plan, dated June 17, 2009, the

25

Court finds this document is relevant to the issues of this case. The Court further finds the attached

26

Registered Nurse Duty Statement relevant to Defendant Orduno’s knowledge and training.

27

Accordingly, Defendants shall produce pages 232- 237 on or before March 30, 2012.

28

//
-7-

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

1

6.

Annual Audit of Training (February 2008 - February 2009)

2

As to Defendant Orduno’s Annual Audit of Training, dated February 1, 2008 through

3

February 28, 2009, the Court finds this document is relevant to her knowledge and training.

4

Accordingly, Defendants shall produce pages 238-239 on or before March 30, 2012.

5

However, the Court finds that the Medical Department Rainbow Sheet and the documents

6

relating to workplace safety are not relevant to this action. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for the

7

production of pages 240-248 is hereby DENIED.

8

7.

9

Defendant Orduno’s licenses from the California Board of Registered Nurses are relevant to

Licenses

10

her knowledge and training. Therefore, Defendants shall produce pages 249-256 on or before

11

March 30, 2012.

12

E.

Defendant Preciado

13

1.

14

As to Defendant Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, dated December 2009 through

Individual Development Plan (December 2009 - December 2010)

15

December 2010, the Court finds this document is relevant to the issues of the case. The Court

16

further finds the Annual Audit of Training relevant to Defendant Preciado’s knowledge and training.

17

Therefore, Defendants shall produce pages 257-260 and 264-267 on or before March 30, 2012.

18

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to

19

Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the

20

issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of the remaining pages of this

21

document is hereby DENIED.

22

2.

Letter of Commendation

23

The Court finds that Defendant Preciado’s Letter of Commendation, dated February 9, 2011,

24

is relevant to the issues of the case. Thus, Defendants shall produce page 273 on or before March

25

30, 2012. However, with regard to the Rainbow Report following the Letter of Commendation, the

26

Court finds this documents is not relevant to this matter. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the

27

production of page 274 is hereby DENIED.

28

//
-8-

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

1

3.

Individual Development Plan (August 2008)

2

With regard to Defendant Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, dated August 14, 2008,

3

the Court finds this document is relevant to the issues of the case. The Court further finds the

4

Annual Audit of Training relevant to Defendant Preciado’s knowledge and training. Therefore,

5

Defendants shall produce pages 275-276 and 285-287 on or before March 30, 2012.

6

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to

7

Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the

8

issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of the remaining pages of this

9

document is hereby DENIED.

10

4.

11

Similarly, the Court finds that Defendant Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, dated

Individual Development Plan (December 2006)

12

December 6, 2006, is relevant to the issues of the case. The Court further finds the Annual Audit of

13

Training relevant to Defendant Preciado’s knowledge and training. Accordingly, Defendants shall

14

produce pages 288-290 and 300-303 on or before March 30, 2012.
However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to

15
16

Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the

17

issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of the remaining pages of this

18

document is hereby DENIED.

19

5.

Individual Development Plan (June 2005)

20

The Court finds that Defendant Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, dated June 29,

21

2005, is relevant to the issues of the case. The Court further finds the Annual Audit of Training

22

relevant to Defendant Preciado’s knowledge and training. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce

23

pages 304-305 and 307-309 on or before March 30, 2012.
However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to

24
25

Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the

26

issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of the remaining pages of this

27

document is hereby DENIED.

28

//
-9-

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

1

6.

Individual Development Plan (Nov. 2000 - Nov. 2001)

2

The Court further finds that Defendant Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, dated

3

November 30, 2002 through November 30, 2001, is relevant to the issues of the case. Moreover, the

4

Court finds the Annual Audit of Training relevant to Defendant Preciado’s knowledge and training.

5

Accordingly, Defendants shall produce pages 316-320 on or before March 30, 2012.

6

However, with regard to the Employee Positional History and work safety documents

7

attached to Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, the Court finds these documents are not

8

relevant to the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of the remaining

9

pages of this document is hereby DENIED.

10

F.

Defendant Stratton

11

1.

12

With regard to Defendant Stratton’s Individual Development Plan, dated August 25, 2005,

Individual Development Plan (August 2005)

13

the Court finds this document is relevant to the issues of this case. The Court further finds the

14

Annual Audit of Training relevant to Defendant Preciado’s knowledge and training. Accordingly,

15

Defendants shall produce pages 330-340 on or before March 30, 2012.

16

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to

17

Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the

18

issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of the remaining pages of this

19

document is hereby DENIED.

20

2.

Individual Development Plan (June 2009)

21

As to Defendant Stratton’s Individual Development Plan, dated June 2, 2009, the Court finds

22

this document is relevant to the issues of this case. The Court further finds the Annual Audit of

23

Training relevant to Defendant Preciado’s knowledge and training. Thus, Defendants shall produce

24

pages 348-351 and 357-359 on or before March 30, 2012.

25

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to

26

Preciado’s Individual Development Plan, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the

27

issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of the remaining pages of this

28

document is hereby DENIED.
- 10 -

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)

1

3.

2

With regard to Defendant Stratton’s Individual Development Plan, dated May 11, 2011, the

3

Court finds the time period at issue is so remote that it is not relevant to the issues of this case. The

4

Court also finds the work safety documents following the Individual Development Plan not relevant

5

to the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the production of pages 364-373 is

6

hereby DENIED.

7

4.

8

The Court finds Defendant Stratton’s Annual Audit of Training, dated November 1, 2009

9
10

Individual Development Plan (May 2011)

Annual Audit of Training (November 2009 - November 2010)

through November 30, 2010, relevant to the issues of this case. Accordingly, Defendants shall
produce pages 374-377 on or before March 30, 2012.

11

5.

12

As to the In Service Training Sign In Sheets signed by Defendant Stratton, dated February 1,

In Service Training Sign In Sheets (2011)

13

2011 through February 4, 2011, the Court finds the time period at issue is so remote that these

14

documents are not relevant to the issues of this case. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for the production of

15

pages 378-385 is hereby DENIED.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 14, 2012

18
19

LOUISA S PORTER
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11 -

08-cv-1242-POR (JMA)