Roettgen v. Foston et al

Filing 123

ORDER Denying 95 Motion for Reconsideration. As for Plaintiff's request for an expanded definition of the term "untruthful," the Court finds that Plaintiff's request is MOOT because Defendants represented that they have produced all documents responsive to Plaintiff's expanded definition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 9/1/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

John Roettgen,

Case No.: 13cv1101-GPC-BGS
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
Foston, et al,
Defendant.

15
16
17

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

18

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used excessive force against him on May 5,

19

2011, and then retaliated against him when he reported the excessive force. (ECF No. 1.)

20

Plaintiff served discovery seeking a broad range of documents. Defendants produced a

21

number of documents, but objected to Plaintiff’s document requests that sought unrelated

22

grievances from third-party inmates, Defendants’ disciplinary records, internal affairs

23

reports, and reprimands. (Declaration of Christopher H. Findley in Support of Defs.’

24

Opp’n to Mot. for Reconsideration (Findley Decl.) ¶ 2.)

25

Plaintiff moved to compel further production of documents, and Defendants

26

opposed. (ECF Nos. 83, 84.) The Court subsequently issued an order requiring

27

Defendants to produce “all disciplinary records, internal affairs reports and/or

28

investigations, CDCR 602 complaints, grievances, and/or reprimands that involve
1
13cv1101-GPC-BGS

1

allegations of excessive force, retaliation, or untruthful conduct involving each of the

2

Defendants throughout the course of their employment at Richard J. Donovan

3

Correctional Facility.” (ECF No. 92 at 17-18.) The Court then analyzed Defendants’

4

objections based on privacy concerns and “acknowledge[d] that these documents may

5

contain private information such as social security numbers and addresses.” (Id. at 10.)

6

The Court continued:

7
8

Importantly, any invasion of the Defendants’ privacy interests can be

9

mitigated through a protective order (Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 617) and by

10

redacting sensitive information. See Lamon v. Adams, 2010 WL 4513405, at

11

*3–4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010) (ordering redaction of the names of the

12

inmates who filed grievances against correctional officer before documents

13

were provided to plaintiff). These measures will greatly reduce the invasion

14

of privacy that would occur with production of the documents at issue.

15
16

(Id.) The Court then granted “Defendants permission to redact any sensitive information

17

from all documents prior to disclosure.” (Id.)

18

II.

19

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 95.)

20

The Motion requested that the grievances be produced with the names of the inmates

21

filing the grievances. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff argued that the identity of the inmates was

22

necessary because he “may need to track down the authors in order to obtain details and

23

their willingness to testify.” (Id.) Plaintiff also sought to expand the Court’s definition

24

of “untruthful conduct” to allegations of filing false reports to cover up misconduct,

25

failure to protect, and keeping investigations internalized. (Id. at 2-3.)

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Court ordered Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion by July 8,

26
27

2016, and ordered Plaintiff to file a reply by July 22, 2016. (ECF No. 101.)

28

///
2
13cv1101-GPC-BGS

1

III.

2

The law of the case doctrine is a judicial invention designed to aid in the efficient

RELEVANT LAW

3

operation of court affairs. Lockert v. United States Dept. of Labor, 867 F.2d 513, 518

4

(9th Cir. 1989). Under the doctrine, a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an

5

issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case.

6

Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir. 1988), amended, 860 F.2d 357

7

(9th Cir. 1988). For the doctrine to apply, the issue in question must have been “decided

8

explicitly or by necessary implication in [the] previous disposition.” Liberty Mutual Ins.

9

Co. v. E.E.O.C., 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1982); accord Eichman v. Fotomat Corp.,

10
11

880 F.2d 149, 157 (9th Cir. 1989).
A court may have discretion to reopen a previously resolved question under one or

12

more of the following circumstances: (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) an

13

intervening change in the law has occurred; (3) the evidence on remand is substantially

14

different; (4) other changed circumstances exist; (5) a manifest injustice would otherwise

15

result. Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1993).

16

IV.

17

CLARIFICATION REGARDING REDACTION OF INMATES’
NAMES

18

Plaintiff appears to seek clarification regarding whether the Court ordered

19

Defendants to redact the names of the inmates who filed grievances produced in

20

discovery. Defendants explain that they took the Court’s language “grant[ing]

21

Defendants’ permission to redact sensitive information from all documents prior to

22

disclosure” to include the names of the inmates. (Findley Decl. ¶ 4.) However, because

23

the order did not explicitly require the Defendants to redact the names of the inmates,

24

Defendants do not object to the Court reconsidering its order in that respect. (ECF No.

25

106 at 4.)

26

For the law of the case doctrine to apply, the issue in question must have been

27

“decided explicitly or by necessary implication in [the] previous disposition.” Liberty

28

Mutual Ins. Co., 691 F.2d at 441. To the extent this Court’s prior order was not explicit
3
13cv1101-GPC-BGS

1

on the issue of redaction, the Court now clarifies that it did intend for Defendants to

2

redact the names of the inmates filing grievances when it allowed for the redacting of

3

sensitive information. Without knowing what the documents said, the Court properly

4

balanced Plaintiff’s need for the information with the privacy interests of the individual

5

inmates.

6

Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff wants this Court to reconsider allowing the

7

inmates’ names to be redacted, that request is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion could be

8

interpreted as arguing that, because he has now received the documents from Defendants,

9

this constitutes a changed circumstance warranting reconsideration of this Court’s order

10

allowing for inmates’ names to be redacted. However, Plaintiff has not made a specific

11

showing that any documents support a re-balancing of factors in his favor, such that the

12

privacy interest held by any inmate would be outweighed by the relevance of that

13

information to Plaintiff’s claims. Other than supplying the Court with hundreds of

14

documents produced by Defendants, Plaintiff has not identified a single incident

15

evidenced by those documents that would compel this Court to override its prior order

16

allowing for redaction of inmates’ names. The Court will not sanction a carte-blanche

17

disclosure of every inmate’s name in Defendants’ production. That would allow for

18

precisely the type of fishing expedition the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seek to

19

avoid.

20

Plaintiff has not made a specific showing that would warrant disclosing the identity

21

of any inmates named in Defendants’ production. As a result, Defendants need not

22

supplement their production to disclose any inmates’ names.

23
24

V.

CLARIFICATION REGARDING “UNTRUTHFUL CONDUCT”

The Court ordered Defendants to produce inmate grievances, internal affairs

25

investigations, and disciplinary reports involving allegations of excessive force,

26

retaliation, or untruthful conduct. (ECF No. 92 at 17-18.) Plaintiff asks this court to

27

expand the definition of untruthful conduct to include (1) filing false reports to include

28

investigative reports and inmate disciplinary; (2) filing false reports so as to cover up
4
13cv1101-GPC-BGS

1

misconduct; (3) failure to protect; and (4) keeping investigations internalized in order to

2

prevent outside discovery. (ECF no. 95 at 3.)

3

Without agreeing that these definitions are appropriate, Defendants represented as

4

follows: “in producing inmate grievances, internal affairs investigations, and disciplinary

5

reports involving allegations of excessive force, retaliation, or untruthful conduct,

6

Defendants did not withhold, and produced all grievances, internal affairs investigations,

7

and disciplinary reports that related to (1) allegations of filing false reports, including (2)

8

reports to cover up misconduct; (3) allegations of failure to protect; and (4) allegations of

9

keeping investigations internalized in order to prevent outside discovery. (Findley Decl.

10

¶ 5.)

11

Without endorsing Plaintiff’s expanded definition of the term “untruthful,” the

12

Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for clarification of the term is MOOT. Even under

13

Plaintiff’s definition, Defendants state that they have produced all relevant documents.

14

The Court cannot compel production of documents that have already been produced.

15

VI.

16

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration DENIED. The Court clarifies that it did

17

intend for the inmates’ names to be redacted in its original order. The Court still finds

18

that Defendants are not required to disclose the names of the inmates who filed any

19

grievances produced to Plaintiff in discovery.

CONCLUSION

20

As for Plaintiff’s request for an expanded definition of the term “untruthful,” the

21

Court finds that Plaintiff’s request is MOOT because Defendants represented that they

22

have produced all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s expanded definition.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 1, 2016

25
26
27
28
5
13cv1101-GPC-BGS