Opinion
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS (PC)
02-21-2017
DIJON KINNEY, Plaintiff, v. S. FLORES, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL REDACTIONS
(ECF NO. 101)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and with counsel in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendant Flores on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims.
I. Procedural History
On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the following discovery: his own deposition transcript, the final dispositions of investigations performed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Office of the Inspector General, video footage of the incident, and photographs taken by medical staff. (ECF No. 51) On May 27, 2016, the Court set the matter for a telephonic discovery dispute conference and ordered Defendants to submit specified documents for in camera review. (ECF No. 56.)
Defendant filed objections to the order (ECF No. 62), which were overruled (ECF No. 71). Defendant ultimately submitted the specified documents for in camera review on January 3 and January 5, 2017. He also submitted a statement of objections to the release of said documents to Plaintiff, a privilege log, and a proposed protective order (ECF Nos. 92- 93).
Following a January 13, 2017 conference, the Court ordered that certain documents be produced to Plaintiff's counsel, some of them pursuant to a protective order. (ECF No. 97.) The Court specified limited permissible redactions to those documents. Defendant now seeks to redact additional material. (ECF No. 101.) Plaintiff filed a response. (ECF No. 108.) Defendant filed no reply.
II. Discussion
A. Subjects of Investigation
Defendants first seek to redact "[a]ny reference in the OIA Investigative Report to who the subjects of the OIA Investigation were, including any reference to any notice of rights that would identify the purpose or type of interview." The Court agrees that the issue of whether correctional personnel other than Defendant were the subject of an OIA Investigation is not, in itself, directly relevant to this action. Thus, Defendant may redact all references to any notice of rights, without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to move the Court to release such information upon a showing of good cause for same.
To the extent Defendant wishes to redact additional references that would identify the subjects of the investigation, he must first submit to the Court, in camera, a copy of the OIA Investigation Report containing the proposed redactions. Additionally, Defendant must submit an index identifying each page containing the proposed redactions, and the line number or approximate line number of the proposed redactions. Such submission shall be made within five days of the date of this order to mjsorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The Court will review the proposed redactions to ensure that they do not redact relevant and otherwise discoverable information and advise the parties of the results of its review before releasing the information.
B. Statement of Facts
Defendant next seeks to redact "[t]he entire Section of the OIA Investigative Report entitled 'Statement of Facts from Investigation.'" Defendant argues that this summary of facts, compiled by a third party investigator, cannot in itself be used to impeach any witness to the acts at issue in this case. Additionally, it is cumulative of other information contained in the OIA report, information which already serves to identify potential witnesses. Finally, "it represents the investigator's selection of facts he found significant."
Plaintiff responds it would be "entirely inappropriate" to redact the entire Statement of Facts, "which the court found to be relevant and which at least seems likely to contain information that is potentially useful to plaintiff's case."
The Court notes that the Statement of Facts does not contain investigative findings or conclusions. It is merely a listing of facts, derived from the investigation, that the investigator found relevant to the specific allegation of misconduct against the Defendant in this action. While the Statement itself likely is inadmissible, it nonetheless may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and therefore is a proper subject of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court reiterates its prior determination that the report contains highly relevant information bearing directly on the incident at issue and potential liability therefore. The Court concludes that the balance of interests tips in favor of requiring Defendant to disclose the Statement of Facts pursuant to the protective order.
III. Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's request for additional redactions (ECF No. 101) is GRANTED IN PART as follows:
a. Defendant may redact from the OIA Report all references to any notice of rights.
b. To the extent Defendant wishes to redact further material identifying the subjects of the investigation, he must submit his proposed redactions to the Court in camera, along with an index of the proposed redactions, within five days. The Court will reserve its ruling on this portion of Defendant's request pending receipt of the proposed redactions, if any.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. In all other respects, the request is DENIED.
Dated: February 21, 2017
/s/ Michael J . Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE