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)

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