Lawson v. Washington State Department of Corrections DOC et al

Filing 68

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 60 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IN CAMERA REVIEW Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (AY, Case Administrator)**3 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(Geoffrey Lawson, Prisoner ID: 334928)

1

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

Jul 26, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

4
5

GEOFFREY ROBERT LAWSON,
SR.,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

v.

No. 2:16-CV-00361-SMJ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER AND IN CAMERA
REVIEW

DAN PACHOLKE; ELDON VAIL;
ISRAEL ROY GONZALES;
BRANDON WELLS; MARTHA
HAYES; TAMERA AVERY; LORI
WONDERS; JOHN DOES 1–10;
PAUL BARKER; BONNIE
LONGINO; H. HERNANDEZ; LT. D.
BUSS; LT. M. MARRY; CC2
JORDAN; BERNARD WARNER;
RACHEL SHOOK; TRACY
STUENKEL,
Defendants.

15
Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Motion for Protective
16
Order and In Camera Review, ECF No. 60. Plaintiff filed with the Court three
17
compact discs (CDs) that contain public disclosure information received directly
18
from the Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts, Kitsap County
19
Superior Court, and Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office, respectively. ECF No. 61.
20
Plaintiff asserts that he received the CDs through the Airway Heights Corrections
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND IN CAMERA REVIEW - 1

1

Center mailroom and has been in possession of each CD for more than one year.

2

Plaintiff further asserts that the CDs “are not broken in half and used as shanks”;

3

“do not contain any erroneous duplication of any of the Agency’s logo’s”; and do

4

not “contain any form of malicious computer code that would threaten Defendants’

5

or any other computer network.” ECF No. 60 at 3. Plaintiff argues that the CDs

6

show Defendants’ arguments are meritless.

7

Plaintiff requests (1) in camera review of the documents; (2) a protective

8

order forbidding Defendants from confiscating or viewing the information

9

contained on the CDs unless necessary to dispose of the case; and (3) return of the

10

original packaging, accompanying documents and CDs under the Court’s authority.

11

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

12

First, in camera review is not appropriate in this case. Generally, all

13

documents provided to the Court must also be provided to all other parties to the

14

case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. However, in limited cases, such as when one party

15

asserts a claim of privilege, it may be appropriate for the Court to review documents

16

in camera to determine whether privilege applies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Plaintiff

17

makes no assertion of privilege and advances no other reason why in camera review

18

is necessary in this case.

19

Second, to the extent Plaintiff asks the Court to prohibit Defendants from

20

confiscating the CDs, his request is duplicative of his motion for preliminary

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND IN CAMERA REVIEW - 2

1

injunctive relief. For the reasons outlined in the Court’s previous order denying

2

preliminary injunctive relief, such relief is not warranted.

3

Finally, although documents filed with the Court generally are not returned,

4

the Court will direct the Clerk’s Office to return Plaintiff’s CDs at the conclusion

5

of this case via standard legal mail procedures.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

7

1.

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and In Camera Review, ECF
No. 60, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 26th day of July 2018.

12
13

__________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND IN CAMERA REVIEW - 3