Darazs v. Dzurenda et al

Filing 106

ORDER Following In Camera Review of Documents. See attached Order for details. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 4/29/2016. (Kaczmarek, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------x
:
CHRISTOPHER DARAZS
:
:
v.
:
:
DZURENDA, et al.
:
:
------------------------------x

Civil No. 3:14CV01330(JCH)

April 29, 2016

ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS
Defendants Dzurenda, et al. (hereinafter “defendants”),
have submitted for an in camera review 103 documents that have
been redacted and/or withheld from disclosure based on claims of
lack of relevance, and due to security, safety and privacy
concerns. Pro se plaintiff Christopher Darazs (hereinafter
“plaintiff”) challenges the redactions on two (2) of these
documents. For the reasons that follow, the Court sustains the
redactions, but orders the production of one additional document
to plaintiff.
Background
Plaintiff filed this action against fifteen (15)
individually named state employees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983,
alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights, claiming that he was subject to excessive force, that
there was a failure to intervene, and that he was denied
adequate medical treatment. [Doc. #35]. Plaintiff seeks monetary

1

damages and declaratory relief. Id. On February 22, 2016,
plaintiff filed a “Motion for review of Redacted Documents,”
requesting an in camera review “for relevance” of the redacted
documents related to the alleged incident that had been
previously provided to plaintiff by defendants. [Doc. #84 at 1].
On March 7, 2016, this Court denied the motion with leave to
renew upon plaintiff’s receipt of a complete set of the disputed
records with Bates-stamps. [Doc. #91 at 2-3]. Plaintiff renewed
the motion on March 25, 2016, requesting an in camera review of
“all documents, unredacted, related to the incident.
Specifically: bates #s one and eight.” [Doc #94 at 1]. The Court
granted plaintiff’s motion on March 29, 2016, and ordered
defendants to provide unredacted copies of the documents
produced to plaintiff bearing Bates-stamps one through twentytwo (constituting the Incident Summary Report and Incident
Report). [Doc. #97]. Defendants submitted the records for in
camera review on April 7, 2016, by hand delivery.1
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks unredacted copies of Bates-stamped

The Court’s Order dated March 29, 2016, required the defendants
to file the documents for in camera submission, under seal, on
or before April 6, 2016. [Doc. #97]. Defendants moved this Court
on April 7, 2016, for an extension of time to deliver the
submission, nunc pro tunc, [Doc. #102]. The Court granted
defendants’ motion on the same date and accepted the submission
via hand-delivery in lieu of a sealed filing.[Doc. #103].
1

2

documents one (1) and eight (8), and asks the Court to review
these records for relevance. Defendants provided an Affidavit
with the in camera submission, specifying the safety, security
and privacy concerns implicated in the disclosure of the
redacted portions of the documents. The Court construes
plaintiff’s motion to argue that the redacted information sought
is relevant, and such relevance outweighs the security and
privacy concerns that defendants raise.2
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets
forth the scope and limitations of permissible discovery:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The party resisting discovery bears
the burden of showing why discovery should be denied.” Cole v.
Towers Perrin Forster & Crosby, 256 F.R.D. 79, 80 (D. Conn.
2009). Relevance “has been construed broadly to encompass any
The Court recognizes that “the submissions of a pro se litigant
must be construed liberally and interpreted ‘to raise the
strongest arguments that they suggest.’” Triestman v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)(quoting
Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006)).
2

3

matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other
matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the
case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351
(1978)(citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)).
After a review of the complete set of records, the Court
finds that the defendants’ redactions are appropriate.
Specifically, Bates-stamped document number one, entitled,
“Incident Summary Report (1, 2 and 3)” is redacted to conceal
the personal and identifying information of inmates not involved
in the subject incident, internal Code designations, and
personal information regarding correctional officers. The second
document sought, Bates-stamped number eight, is also redacted to
conceal internal Code designations and personal information
regarding correctional officers.
The Court finds no compelling reason to disclose any of
this information to plaintiff as said information is neither
relevant to the claims alleged, nor necessary for plaintiff to
prove his case. The other identified inmates are not alleged to
be witnesses to the incident at issue, and plaintiff does not
contend that their identities or personal information are
relevant to his claims. In regards to the Code designations,
“defendants have a legitimate security interest in withholding
the requested materials.” Delacruz v. Bennett, No. 03CV6455L,
2006 WL 1389770, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 19, 2006)(denying an
4

incarcerated plaintiff’s request for an unredacted copy of the
Department of Correction’s Employee Handbook); see also Carter
v. Kiernan, No. 98CIV2664(JGK)(MHD), 1999 WL 1043865, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 1999); Sowell v. Chappius, No. 07CV6355, 2010
WL 1404004, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010)(“[A] court can impose
limits on a pro se plaintiff’s access to information that may,
in the hands of a prisoner, pose a threat to institutional
safety and security.”). The Court finds that the privacy and
security concerns set forth by defendants outweigh plaintiff’s
interest in disclosure. See Woodward v. Mullah, No.
08CV463(A)(M), 2010 WL 3023117, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2010).
Upon review of the entire set of unredacted records,
however, the Court has determined that one record was improperly
withheld from disclosure to plaintiff. Bates-stamped document
number five was initially withheld from plaintiff as it regarded
other inmates in an unrelated matter, as per a letter to
plaintiff from defendants, dated March 9, 2016. The Court’s
review of this record reveals information related to plaintiff’s
incident. Thus, the Court hereby orders that defendants shall
provide Bates-stamped document five to plaintiff, subject to the
redactions deemed appropriate supra, on or before May 13, 2016.
This is not a Recommended Ruling. This is an order
regarding discovery and case management which is reviewable
pursuant to the “clearly erroneous” statutory standard of
5

review. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); and D.
Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2.

As such, it is an order of the Court

unless reversed or modified by the District Judge upon motion
timely made.
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut, this 29th day of
April, 2016.
/s/
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6