Becker v. Carney et al

Filing 149

ORDER denying 109 Motion to Produce records, signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Asher Becker, Prisoner ID: 325267)(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 ASHER JAMES BECKER, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05315-RBL-JRC ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL v. BRENT CARNEY, et al., Defendants. 15 16 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States 17 Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. The Court’s authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. 19 Plaintiff filed a motion to produce records because a set of prison grievances he requested 20 were being withheld by the mail room. Dkt. 109. Defendants responded that the records were 21 being withheld based on a legitimate prison security policy. Dkt. 123. The Court ordered 22 defendants to show cause why they should not be ordered to allow plaintiff to view the requested 23 records in a controlled setting. Dkt. 132. Defendants have now filed a response. Dkt. 136. 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL - 1 1 Defendants explain that the prison grievances requested by plaintiff include confidential 2 information about other inmates. Dkt. 136 at 2. They state that allowing plaintiff to gain access 3 to this information in any form poses a security risk. Id. They further explain that 4 accommodating a viewing of these documents would put a burden on staff and prison resources. 5 Id. However, defendants have redacted copies of the documents, omitting inmates’ names, 6 Department of Corrections (“DOC”) numbers, and prison cell information, and have mailed 7 those redacted copies to plaintiff. Id. at 2-3. 8 Therefore, defendants have shown cause why they should not be ordered to allow 9 plaintiff to view the requested records in a controlled setting. By mailing the redacted copies to 10 plaintiff, defendants seem to have appropriately balanced DOC’s security interests with 11 plaintiff’s interests in his discovery materials. The Court finds that the redacted copies of the 12 requested records are sufficient for plaintiff to determine the relevance of those records to his 13 claims. Because defendants have now produced these records, plaintiff’s motion to produce 14 records (Dkt. 109) is denied. 15 Dated this 1st day of December, 2017. A 16 17 J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL - 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?